If I'm going to have a human centric game, I will let the players know that during session 0 or even before. A DM that ends up with 3 drow and a gnome in a human centric game didn't talk to the players about it before hand.
Or somehow wanted the “danger to the human kingdom” to be an (early) surprise in game.
I think quite often it's a case of not really knowing what they wanted until they realise they didn't get it.Or doesn't get the respect he or she deserves. It may be that they said they wanted a human-centric game, but the players all showed up with the Mos Eisley weirdos anyway assuming that the DM would let them play anyway.
Edit: Also and related the DM may be quite happy with one weird character (so they're allowed) but didn't expect everyone to take that option. This is the problem when you just set character creation boundaries.
If you want a focused game you really need to work together to make characters (and I think make sure that players don't try to just bring some character they've already made*).
*Really I think the player who has a specific character they made a while ago and wrote a backstory with and want to bring along and play in your game is poison. When they insist they can fit it into your game they're usually wrong - the character is made for the the D&D world they imagine in their head (or maybe for the published world they created it for - usually Forgotten Realms) and is often incompatible with the other players' characters as well..
This is a basic rule for me. Do not start thinking about characters before session 0.
Last edited: