D&D 5E Greyhawk, and race options for Oerth PCs

[Dire Bare]

So let's say you want to join a game. The DM gives you a list of accepted races that includes standard other than dragonborn and tiefling. They're up front about it, it's in the preview campaign documentation.

I ask because as a DM I want to have a campaign world that makes sense to me. I just don't see a place for dragonborn in my world. They've simply never existed in the history of the campaign world that I've run for a very long time across multiple editions.

Is that really a show stopper for you? If it otherwise sounds like an interesting campaign?

Hussar covered it pretty well. Without you going into more detail on WHY dragonborn don't have a place in your world, it sets a red flag for me. That you MIGHT be a DM who says "No" more often than "Yes", a DM who can be inflexible. Doesn't mean that's truly your style, or even if it is that we wouldn't have fun gaming together, but it's a red flag for me.

Now if you were able to communicate that you are going for a particular storytelling or genre feel, "old school" or classic literary fantasy where the protagonists are generally "normal" humans vs. a scary and monstrous magical world, with the occasional fey or monstrous ally . . . . I could get excited about that. Although even then, why not a dragonborn "Chewbacca" in an otherwise human party?

It's not that you don't allow dragonborn necessarily, it's how well you articulate WHY you don't. And the fact they haven't existed in your campaign yet is weaksauce. You mean you aren't creative enough to find a way to introduce them? In the Realms, dragonborn were introduced as a part of a planer catastrophe, they are refugees from another world! Or perhaps, as in Eberron, they are from a distant, mysterious continent that even the most traveled of explorers knows very little. Or, as in Dragonlance, they are a created race used to build a conquering army, but then discarded when their purpose has failed. In 3rd edition, dragonborn were humans (or humanoids) who served Bahamut and underwent a ritual than transformed them into platinum-scaled draconic beings.

Of course, your reasons are your reasons and as long as you and your players are having fun, you're certainly not doing it "wrong". And you get major points about being up front about it with new players (too often, that doesn't happen). But the way you've described your campaign's limitations in this thread, it would not get me excited to join your campaign, even if playing a dragonborn wasn't on my immediate bucket list.

 

[Dire Bare]

But the bolded part is kind of the point of why a lot of DMs don't allow other races. Most of the time people just play the same human-with-a-rubber-mask character anyway. It's not really surprising, it's what we know. But if it's not going to make a difference in the PC that you play other than perhaps some perceived mechanical advantage, why does it matter?

As far as allowing every race, I simply don't want to run a kitchen sink campaign. I try to run a campaign that's basically "what would it be like if there were magic and monsters?" I just don't see dozens of races running around making a lot of sense. Heck, I've considered eliminating halfings because they don't really add a lot and they just feel like short humans.

If that means I'm not the DM for you then that's not really my problem.

Having limits and restrictions can be different than simply saying "No". Rather than saying "no dragonborn", how about, "I'd prefer to keep the more exotic, monstrous races out of the party, perhaps one PC at most. And dragonborn don't yet exist in my campaign, so we'd have to come up with a good story to add them in."

And the "Star Trek" effect of nonhuman races (humans with pointed ears and/or wrinkly foreheads) can be an issue with ANY nonhuman race. And, admittedly, it's hard to properly roleplay a nonhuman, since all of us players are only human ourselves. Truly distinct nonhuman races is challenging for the most experienced and talented groups, and to use it as a reason to disallow dragonborn and tieflings? Why not instead challenge players to make their nonhuman characters more distinctive, instead of banning them?

 

[Zardnaar]

Hussar covered it pretty well. Without you going into more detail on WHY dragonborn don't have a place in your world, it sets a red flag for me. That you MIGHT be a DM who says "No" more often than "Yes", a DM who can be inflexible. Doesn't mean that's truly your style, or even if it is that we wouldn't have fun gaming together, but it's a red flag for me.

Now if you were able to communicate that you are going for a particular storytelling or genre feel, "old school" or classic literary fantasy where the protagonists are generally "normal" humans vs. a scary and monstrous magical world, with the occasional fey or monstrous ally . . . . I could get excited about that. Although even then, why not a dragonborn "Chewbacca" in an otherwise human party?

It's not that you don't allow dragonborn necessarily, it's how well you articulate WHY you don't. And the fact they haven't existed in your campaign yet is weaksauce. You mean you aren't creative enough to find a way to introduce them? In the Realms, dragonborn were introduced as a part of a planer catastrophe, they are refugees from another world! Or perhaps, as in Eberron, they are from a distant, mysterious continent that even the most traveled of explorers knows very little. Or, as in Dragonlance, they are a created race used to build a conquering army, but then discarded when their purpose has failed. In 3rd edition, dragonborn were humans (or humanoids) who served Bahamut and underwent a ritual than transformed them into platinum-scaled draconic beings.

Of course, your reasons are your reasons and as long as you and your players are having fun, you're certainly not doing it "wrong". And you get major points about being up front about it with new players (too often, that doesn't happen). But the way you've described your campaign's limitations in this thread, it would not get me excited to join your campaign, even if playing a dragonborn wasn't on my immediate bucket list.

What if there was no Dragonborn but Dragonkin?

Or no Dragonborn but Yuan Ti?

Atm I'm allowing around 30 races and half a dozen new subraces for the phb.

If I told a player upfront here's what's allowed and they asked for something else it's a red flag right there.

DM shortage, waiting list of players here. I'm offering this it's up to you if you want to play.

 

[billd91]

It's not that you don't allow dragonborn necessarily, it's how well you articulate WHY you don't. And the fact they haven't existed in your campaign yet is weaksauce. You mean you aren't creative enough to find a way to introduce them?

Honestly, I'm getting kind of pissed off at the idea that not fitting in one more race isn't "being creative enough". It's not a question of not being creative enough - it's a question of not coming to the same result in our uses of creativity.

 

[Dire Bare]

LOL. Reminds me of when I first got back into DMing after taking a break for a few years. For a while I had the attitude of allowing just about anything. One guy played a a seven foot tall albino pacifist elf with no weapons that didn't work out very well for some reason. Probably had something to do with the fact that he had no way of attacking. Or casting spells. Or otherwise contributing to the party. Fortunately he only lasted 1 session.

So when the next guy wanted to play a half vampire half dragon with a cape that was always billowing as if blown by a nonexistent wind I knew what the answer was. He could never really explain how he could be half dragon and half vampire or what his powers would be, but I'm sure he had some grand plans. Sometimes the best thing a DM can say is "no".

If I was thinking of joining your game, and you told me, "Sorry, no half-vampire, half-dragons in my game! Not again!" I'd have to cut you a strange look. Your problem isn't with allowing "strange races" into your game, but with a player who has immature (and odd) power fantasies. And simply telling that player, "No" isn't fun or helpful. Working with them to create a more interesting and viable (and non power-trippy) combo would make for more fun around the table.

So, Timmy, you want to play a half-vampire, half-dragon? With a constantly billowing cape? I'm not sure that's the tone we're going for in this campaign, but let's see how we can realize some of your concept here . . . . How about a dhampir or vyrloka (both "half-vampire" types) who studies draconic magic, and is obsessed with gaining draconic powers? Perhaps even becoming a dragon someday (post 20th-level)? Your prestidigitation spell should cover the constantly billowing cloak (or at least, the cloak that billows at appropriately dramatic moments). Now Timmy, keep in mind that vampires, even half-vampires, freak the naughty word out of normal folks. The nature of your existence would need to be a secret, and if discovered your character would find themselves hunted! And dragons don't look kindly on mere humanoids aspiring to join their ranks, you might end up with some draconic adversaries in addition to the undead hunters! BOOM! Now we got some back story with hooks for the campaign! Roll up that half-vampire, school of dracology wizard with the flair for the dramatic! What?!?! You want a flumph familiar!!?! That's too far, "NO!"

 

[Dire Bare]

Honestly, I'm getting kind of pissed off at the idea that not fitting in one more race isn't "being creative enough". It's not a question of not being creative enough - it's a question of not coming to the same result in our uses of creativity.

Meh. Get pissed all you want.

What is the reason behind your campaign setting? A canvas for your GROUP to collaboratively tell fantasy stories on? Or your personal novel setting that you must control every aspect of? Dragonborn don't exist in my campaign. Why? Because . . . they don't, and it's MY campaign! Okay . . .

As I've pointed out in several posts, not allowing dragonborn (or some other list of races/classes/character options) can be a useful filter to try and create a specific genre feel. But rarely have I encountered DM's who can articulate that, it's more often (in my experience) a control freak reaction to PCs changing the DM's precious setting.

Heck, if a DM told me, "I don't allow dragonborn in my campaign. Why? Not sure really, I just don't like them." I'd probably roll my eyes, but that wouldn't necessarily kill the game for me. It's a red flag that the DM might be unnecessarily inflexible, but not a surefire indicator. I've had DM's "outlaw" kender and gnomes after too many bad experiences, and I can respect that a bit, even if I would prefer a more creative approach to player's who like to play annoying characters.

 

[billd91]

Meh. Get pissed all you want.

What is the reason behind your campaign setting? A canvas for your GROUP to collaboratively tell fantasy stories on? Or your personal novel setting that you must control every aspect of? Dragonborn don't exist in my campaign. Why? Because . . . they don't, and it's MY campaign! Okay . . .

Funny how everyone's always ripping on the DM about being against the group when it comes to control when it's just as likely the other way. If a player insists on playing any race they want (of course browbeating the DM for not being creative enough), they're the ones exerting the need for control. You say it's a group endeavor, but somehow the DM is never really part of the group.

 

[Zardnaar]

Meh. Get pissed all you want.

What is the reason behind your campaign setting? A canvas for your GROUP to collaboratively tell fantasy stories on? Or your personal novel setting that you must control every aspect of? Dragonborn don't exist in my campaign. Why? Because . . . they don't, and it's MY campaign! Okay . . .

As I've pointed out in several posts, not allowing dragonborn (or some other list of races/classes/character options) can be a useful filter to try and create a specific genre feel. But rarely have I encountered DM's who can articulate that, it's more often (in my experience) a control freak reaction to PCs changing the DM's precious setting.

Heck, if a DM told me, "I don't allow dragonborn in my campaign. Why? Not sure really, I just don't like them." I'd probably roll my eyes, but that wouldn't necessarily kill the game for me. It's a red flag that the DM might be unnecessarily inflexible, but not a surefire indicator. I've had DM's "outlaw" kender and gnomes after too many bad experiences, and I can respect that a bit, even if I would prefer a more creative approach to player's who like to play annoying characters.

Player berates me for not being creative enough I just replace the player.

My next game is pirates, it will probably be the 4 core races and 8 other races.

 

[Dire Bare]

Funny how everyone's always ripping on the DM about being against the group when it comes to control when it's just as likely the other way. If a player insists on playing any race they want (of course browbeating the DM for not being creative enough), they're the ones exerting the need for control. You say it's a group endeavor, but somehow the DM is never really part of the group.

None of my examples given allow the player's to "browbeat" the DM into playing whatever they want. In all of my examples the DM is going for a certain campaign feel, and works with the players to try to achieve that.

Allowing an individual player to control a game doesn't sound like fun (I've been there). But neither does playing with a DM who is more about "no" and control than having collaborative fun with the group (been there too).

I'll give an example from my own DM'ing experience. I enjoy running "heroic" games, I don't enjoy "mercenary", "evil", or "amoral murder-hobo" games. But I don't have any rules banning "evil" or "mercenary" characters. If a player wants to create a human ranger concerned about the increase of monsters in the forest, that's easy and we don't need to have a super in-depth convo about how that will fit into my campaign. But the other player wants to play a dark character obsessed with power who will do anything to achieve it. Do I say, "Nope. Sorry, no evil PCs in my game!" No, rather I have a more in-depth convo with that player, reminding them of the tone I'm going for, and how can we do this and allow everybody (me included) to have fun? Weis and Hickman managed it with Raistlin from the very heroic Dragonlance Chronicles. It might be a challenge to successfully pull that off in my campaign, for both me and the player, but I'm willing to say "yes" and give it a try. What's the worst that can happen? The campaign begins to derail a bit and I have another convo with the player on how we can all continue to have fun . . . worst case scenario, after a while the character is "retired" if not working out, and we try something new.

 

[Zardnaar]

No evil PCs in my game or CN played as faux evil.