D&D 5E Access to Races in a Campaign

[Sunseeker]

It seems like you are working extra hard to avoid something that is rather minor.

I don't consider the problems minor. Differences of opinion and all that.

Again, that is more work, than it is worth. Why not just allow the race? I have an entire island chain in my world run by Duegar. Goblins inhabit the islands, but the Gray Dwarves rule from the bowels of the volcano that makes up the island chain. Additionally, I added Kou-tao that fight over control of the goblin villages with the Duegar. My players could pick any of those races if they wanted. It might be a problem if someone chooses a Duegar and another chooses a Kou-tao, so I make make limitations, but outlaw it because I dislike the thematic elements? PAH!!

Because the default fluff for numerous races is BAD. I had a long discussion with my wife over this and more fully expressed what I do: I analyze all the races as though they were human. If you strip away the "they're aliens and therefore different" and address the fluff as though you were talking about humans, the fluff is often hugely racist, stereotypical and in many cases downright offensive.

If seems like you are rather stereotypical here. Why can't a gnome just be a short trader with a long nose that enjoys tinkering?

Because I find the more fae-centric lore of Gnomes more interesting? Because Santa's Little Helper is dumb?

Because they simply want to be different, and the story element can be fun. Sure they could play a "stocky, grumpy drunk [human] with a napoelon complex and a love for rocks with a bad foreign accent," but where is the fun or the story in that? Its just another human living life amongst other humans, instead of someone different learning to endure life in the human world.

I ask you conversely: where is the fun in "I'm different because I'm different, deal with it?" What I've taken away from them is the "race card" as a defense. They can't defend their actions with "Kender steal everything!" or "Dwarves are drunk every waking moment!" they have to defend their actions with "I willfully chose to make my character a thieving jerkward and a ranging drunk." When you take away the race card, you produce more critical thinking about character concepts.

Not really, it a story-telling component. That gives the player something "fantastic" to role-play.

There's plenty of fantasy to role-play in my games. Besides, this argument only applies to the utmost few of existing races. Elves are ostensibly tree-happy humans, Dwarves are rock-happy humans. Halflings are literally short bumpkin humans. Etc... Players can add all the flair and pizzazz any of these races possess simply though good roleplay.

Again, its a component that gives the player something interesting and different from real lift to tell an interesting story.

If you can't find anything interesting or different in a fantasy universe without having to be a special snowflake, your character concept is fundamentally broken.

Stereotype much?? I played a half-orc who's parent fell in love, and the mother chose to live with the tribe till my character's father was killed over a fight for power of the tribe. The mother moved home and was persecuted for her love of someone different. My character shared in that persecution because he was different. Still because he loved his mother and because it was her home, he cared for the city even though no one there really liked him. It was a story-telling component that made the character interesting, and made for great roleplaying.

No, not stereotype much. "rape baby" was the WOTC official background for half-orcs in every prior edition. Now instead of women being stolen like property, they're sold like property, as half-orcs are now written as the result of arranged marriages. AKA: soft rape.

I disagree that it sucks. Gygax did a great job with Greyhawk, its just not my kind of world. The feel is spot on with the original vision of D&D, which is what has really draw players to the game.

I HATE greyhawk. I hate the books. I hate the lore. I hate the characters. (The Dark Side also has cookies).

Seems to me you simply aren't interested in the roleplaying beyond your ideal bubble.

Pot, kettle. I do a lot of things. You're in no position to judge me.

The thing is we live as humans every day, the point of "Fantasy Roleplaying" is to bring some fantasy into your world. That is why other races exist to allow the player to be something they aren't...at least for a little while.

I had no idea that's what the races were for. I was under the impression we had non-humans because it was a trope of fantasy. Half the races you've mentioned weren't even playable until recent editions.

I don't play an elf to escape from being a human. I play an elf because it better fits the concept I have in mind.

 

[Fishing_Minigame]

I think I have different players than the rest of you. I could almost see mine revolting if I tried to restrict races. Between the 3 games I've played/run recently, there have been 4 tieflings, 3 dwarves and 2 dragonborn, and a bunch of other things, but only 2 humans.

I could certainly see getting fed up enough with a certain race to ban it, but for the most part I think if my world is robust enough to tolerate 4+ merely human murderhoboes running around doing silly things, it can similarly cope if they have horns and scales.

 

[mestewart3]

2. If you play dragonborn, expect to avoid settlements, as you will be hunted down as a monster

I despise this sort of thing. "Oh sure, you can play it but I will F with you relentlessly so long as you do. Why? You ask. Because I have arbitrarially decided that the race is super rare and people don't know anything about them."

It is almost worse than an outright ban. Why on earth would the ancient Empire building proud warrior race guys get treated like monsters?

 

[Lanefan]

Let's use my group as an anecdote: We've been playing together for nearly a decade now, but when I first moved here and joined the group they had a DM and were already an established group.

That DM did things that all of us found unfun, and so we all agreed he'd not be the DM anymore and I started DMing for the group instead. Just like play could have kept on if one player left, we could keep playing without that DM because one of us could take over.

In my current game there are 4 players. Two of those have tried DMing in the past and aren't interested. The third isn't interested in DMing at all. The fourth is already DMing another campaign and hasn't got time for a second. Not always so simple...

Lack of time is not a valid reason, a DM can run an enjoyable game with no more time invested into it than the players.

If you want a campaign with no depth whatsoever, perhaps; but I've never seen or heard of a DM running a sustainable game without putting more time into it than the players. I'm talking long-term campaigns here, not one-offs or gonzo games.

Commitment is also not required to be any higher for a DM than it is for a player, so that's not a valid reason either.

Er...the DM is committing to run the game as long as people want to play in it, and has to show up if any session is to run. A player commits to one session at a time, usually, and if he no-shows the game can still go on.

Confidence with rules knowledge is also not actually required to be a successful DM - it can be replaced with either the confidence that messing up the rules doesn't actually matter that much, or by having the group work together to keep the rules straight. So that's another not actually valid reason.

Confidence with the rules is essential unless you've got a dream-like group of altruistic players who would never turn a disputed rule to their advantage. A DM also needs confidence in her rulings (remember, 5e = rulings not rules) and the ability to make those runlings in such a way as to keep the game playable.

All of why a player doesn't think they can DM, besides "I do not enjoy it", is usually BS believed because some DM along the way in that gamer's life played up how much effort and skill and time were mandatory to be a DM in order to enforce their power over their players and leverage to get their own way instead of having to treat their players as being of equal importance.

Being a DM is no more of a special skill or position of authority than running the bank during a game of Monopoly.

What DM school did you go to, where they taught you how to do it so easy?

Do you not design your own world? Do you never houserule, or tinker with the system? Do you never write your own adventures, pantheons, story arc, or plot? Do you track or log or record what the party does, and when, and what it finds? All these things take time and effort, and there's a bit of skill involved in all but the last question.

Let's use my dislike of gnomes as an example: I don't like them. Not one bit. I'd be perfectly happy if the game had never included them in the first place, I'll never play one, including that if someone reincarnates my character as a gnome I'll declare my character's soul unwilling to return.

...but if a player wants to play a gnome because they think gnomes are cool, I'll let them, and I'll just not think about what race their character is at all - they could just as easily be a halfling or a shorter than normal dwarf, elf, a goblin even, because I'm not dwelling on that they are a gnome because I don't actually have to keep bringing it up to remind the player their character is a gnome, and there isn't anything I have to add to the game in order for the player to feel like they are playing a gnome.

Er...yes there is. You now need to determine where said Gnome comes from and whether that means there's other Gnomes out there; what their culture's like, etc. etc. Or you could leave it to the player, I suppose.

I basically see three options, with three outcomes:
1) Ban what I don't like - resulting in me having fun, but anyone that likes things that were banned having reduced fun.

Or the same fun or even more fun, just with something different.

Lan-"not a Gnome fan, but there's far worse 'playable' races out there"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

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)

Where while I restrict races it's anything goes after that. The alignment arguments will sort themselves out during play (as they should) and if three people roll up Fighters, so be it. If the party thinks it's missing a class they can always go and recruit an NPC.

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.

And to me that is already wa-a-ay more restrictive than not being able to run a Gnome. I'll be the source of my character's personality, thank you very much, and if it happens to rub some of the rest of the party the wrong way we can have those arguments in character during the game. It's called role-playing.

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

"That's what the character would do" should ideally be the justification for everything any character ever does, period.

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.

Different strokes, I guess, as I have no issue at all with disharmonious parties. In fact, it's more realistic that not everyone is going to get along all the time, and not everyone you run with will be perfect. I see it as my job as DM to ensure the arguments stay in character, after which I can sit back and enjoy the entertainment while being ready to jump in with story elemenets once things subside. As a player my own alignment is a bit chaotic; I do what I'm told for too much of the rest of the time, in the game I'm gonna do what I want.

Lan-"by the time you get to 'it's what my character would do' you're actually talking about what my character just did"-efan

 

[mestewart3]

Sorry Lanefan I disagree. How you want to play your character doesn't give you the right to be a dick. Playing a character that disrupts the game and tears down the efforts the rest of the table are making to create a story is never alright in m book.

I don't know whether or not you do this, but it sounds like what you are arguing for.

 

[Sunseeker]

I despise this sort of thing. "Oh sure, you can play it but I will F with you relentlessly so long as you do. Why? You ask. Because I have arbitrarially decided that the race is super rare and people don't know anything about them."

It is almost worse than an outright ban. Why on earth would the ancient Empire building proud warrior race guys get treated like monsters?

I have to agree with this. I've been with DMs like this too. I don't understand why it's so hard to just say "NO". Why screw with people like that? It's mean-spirited.
"You can play whatever you want, but if you play X Y or Z I'll kill your characters one by one until you fall in line with my whims."

 

[Lidgar]

I despise this sort of thing. "Oh sure, you can play it but I will F with you relentlessly so long as you do. Why? You ask. Because I have arbitrarially decided that the race is super rare and people don't know anything about them."

It is almost worse than an outright ban. Why on earth would the ancient Empire building proud warrior race guys get treated like monsters?

Perhaps because that is not my definition of what a Dragonborn is? Perhaps because I have some players that enjoy the flavor of some races being ostracized, and enjoy the RP elements it provides?

And I do not "F" with the players relentlessly because they selected a race they want to play. They know exactly what they are doing, and they have fun doing it.

Contrary to your statement, it is not an arbitrary decision, but a carefully constructed storyline inherent to the campaign world they are playing in.

 

[Lidgar]

I have to agree with this. I've been with DMs like this too. I don't understand why it's so hard to just say "NO". Why screw with people like that? It's mean-spirited.
"You can play whatever you want, but if you play X Y or Z I'll kill your characters one by one until you fall in line with my whims."

I can see why you interpreted my post that way. That is not at all the intent. If I really didn't want a race at the table, I would say no, and not "mess' with the player. I have had a menagerie of character types at my table, from kobolds, to hobgoblins, to pixies. In each case, I simply ask the player to have a plausible backstory.

What I was trying to get across was the general feel for the main core races and how they are seen by some by the general populace in some of the more settled areas in our current campaign. Some of my players enjoy playing those races because of the RP challenges it brings. Currently, the group in PotA includes a Tiefling and a Dragonborn, and all are having fun.

 

[abirdcall]

Where while I restrict races it's anything goes after that. The alignment arguments will sort themselves out during play (as they should) and if three people roll up Fighters, so be it. If the party thinks it's missing a class they can always go and recruit an NPC.

Evil characters are a headache in an otherwise good party. You're just asking for derailment and arguments.

It's not about a missing role in the party, it's about spotlight time. If everyone is the same class it is harder for me to ensure those characters stand out and get spotlight time.

And to me that is already wa-a-ay more restrictive than not being able to run a Gnome. I'll be the source of my character's personality, thank you very much, and if it happens to rub some of the rest of the party the wrong way we can have those arguments in character during the game. It's called role-playing.

I call it being a dick. We have zero tolerance for it. We have put up with troublesome players for far too long in the past. They say they want to make a troubled, nuanced character, but really they just want to bully everyone, derail the game, and have the spotlight on their special snowflake all the time.

It is a cooperative game.

I am not against playing a campaign where there is no party per se and the main game revolves around the drama of disparate PCs working or not working together to achieve their various aims.

That needs to be a central theme though and explicitly called out before character creation.