D&D 5E Should Published Settings Limit Classes and Races Allowed?

[Shiroiken]

I think the way the 4E Darksun worked is best, where you have a standard list of removed options. The DM may allow exceptions, but each one has a unique reason why they are able to break the rule. This would allow the largest number of players/DMs to enjoy the setting.

 

[Azzy]

They should state what is disallowed by default, as well as why it's disallowed, and they should provide setting-specific options for including things disallowed by default if groups want to include those things.

I support this idea vigorously.

 

[Jester David]

Yes.

There are no orcs and drow in Dragonlance, no orcs, gnomes, and goblins in Dark Sun (and no clerics), orcs don't really have a place in Ravenloft, and the like.
Settings should be allowed to focus on their quirks and restrictions.

Similarly, DMs should be allowed to focus on the races they like and they don't like. Removing a race is a fun and simple way of making a world "different" and opens up a story and world niche for other races. If dwarves don't exist, then suddenly gnomes are the best craftsmen in the world and become more interesting. Or maybe earth genasi. If there are no elves in the world, firbolgs might become far more prominent.
Furthermore, DMs are not required to include every single race WotC chooses to publish. (Or limited to just those races.)

But players need to be warned in advance, so they don't show up with a banned concept and be dissapointed. And should be willing to put character concepts on hold for campaigns that fit that concept, or compromise in their race and class.
The DM is the one writing the adventures and making the campaign, so it's the least the players can do not to sabotage their efforts.

 

[akr71]

Normally yes, but as is "these are the races that inhabit this world" way. If my players and I decide to play in Greyhawk and want to include kender, we are well within our right to do so.

Our version of the setting does not have to be canon and likely never will be.

 

[jaelis]

In general I'd say rhe setting designer should have the freedom to do whatever they want. If you're talking about WotC updating established settings, then I think they should try to stay true to the original concept. Including advice about bypassing restrictions would be nice though.

 

[Morrus]

We can all customize our home games, but are buyers open to purchasing published settings where not only new options are given, but some published options are specifically not given? No elves? No paladins? No fire magic?

To answer that question, I think all we need to do is find out how well Adventures in Middle Earth is doing.

 

[Satyrn]

We can all customize our home games, but are buyers open to purchasing published settings where not only new options are given, but some published options are specifically not given? No elves? No paladins? No fire magic?

I have a semantic quibble that's making it hard for me to answer.

I can't tell if you're talking about a setting that limits the races by not mentioning them, or if it limits the races by explicitly saying "these are the only allowed races" or "no gnomes."


I'm totally fine with settings that "limit" races by never mentioning them. I don't want them to tell me "No gnomes allowed."

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm totally fine with settings that "limit" races by never mentioning them. I don't want them to tell me "No gnomes allowed."

Whereas I do.

I want settings to be explicit, not just about what new options they introduce, but about what standard options are not appropriate, be it for thematic, historical, mechanical, or any other reason.

That said, I also don't mind sidebars with suggestions on how an individual DM can include said options despite "canon" if they wish to do so.

 

[Satyrn]

Whereas I do.

I want settings to be explicit, not just about what new options they introduce, but about what standard options are not appropriate, be it for thematic, historical, mechanical, or any other reason.

That said, I also don't mind sidebars with suggestions on how an individual DM can include said options despite "canon" if they wish to do so.

I think we're actually rather the same. I didn't say it very well, but what I don't want is for a setting book to tell the DM "no gnomes allowed."

 

[Morrus]

I think we're actually rather the same. I didn't say it very well, but what I don't want is for a setting book to tell the DM "no gnomes allowed."

If I were playing in a Game of Thrones setting, elves and gnomes just wouldn’t fit. Similarly, dragonborn characters wouldn’t feel right to me in Middle Earth. It would break the immersive feel for me. Taking it to it’s extreme, do we allow Vulcans in a Star Wars game and Jedi on the Enterprise?

I personally find settings more attractive if the fiction is more directed.