D&D 5E When lore and PC options collide…

[AnotherGuy]

If you're going to ban something because you dislike it, be honest enough with your players to just tell them that.

I'd think most DMs are.
I pretty up front for my dislike of monks. I just don't think dudes in pyjamas using their hands while others are wearing armour, carrying shields and wielding weapons and magic should be effective. That of course is a subjective opinion and I realise that, but monks at my table are classes non gratae.

 

[Voadam]

To turn that around: do you have examples, hell even just a single example, of discussion where people are gung-ho about significant and inflexible restrictions but expressly forbid elves, dwarves, and halflings? (Although I would prefer forbidding humans too, I recognize that that is too big an ask for evidence of this kind.)

I enjoyed the d20 Diamond Throne setting which default used the alt PH races of Arcana Unearthed so giants, a little fey race, Lion people, jackal people, dragon people types, each heavily integrated into the setting and its politics and history, but no dwarves, elves, gnomes, or orcs. Still has humans, though in the setting they are not in charge (the giants and later giants and dragons are).

 

[Xamnam]

okay, but again not the example we have been discussing over multi threads... I can only assume you are coming in new here (to the orcs on DL issue that has already closed 1 thread)

Ah, yeah, I'm not familiar with the other examples. I used the completely arbitrary no gnomes example as a fresh one. So, I can't really weigh in on what I'm sure was a long chain of responses in those other threads, I'm sure I'm missing way too much context to accurately respond to that. However,

The example was your regular weekly game, you all show up with drawn up characters (or mostly cause some said you would need to roll stats at table) and you made a half orc. You are then told this world doesn't have orcs and teh reason isn't one you as a player feel is a good one.

Here's the disconnect. I can't think of a reason that would feel so bad so as to cause push back from me. If that situation happened, and I showed up with a pre-built half orc, and had to start over? It'd be a little tedious, and I hope I wouldn't slow the game down, but I wouldn't argue with the DM about it. Even if I was given a "bad" reason, one I didn't care for, I'd still go along with it. I'm not showing up at the table unless I'm excited to play the game the DM wants to run, so I'm going to find a new character that fits.

I was really only trying to respond to the idea that most players won't go along with restriction if the reason isn't good. That doesn't seem correct to me. But, in typing this, obviously this is subjective, so I can't say you're wrong, just that it hasn't been my experience with any player I've seen.

This lead to me starting to say "IF you say enough they disagree with THEY say bye bye and you don't have a game"

I agree. It's like I said upthread, it's not worth running the game unless both sides are enthusiastic about it. One player, usually the DM, proposes the campaign, the rest of the players ask questions, and then either agree or don't play it. If two players are opposed on something they both care enough to argue about, walking away from that campaign is for the best result for everyone.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As for a half-orc assassin being in a novel. Three things. First and foremost an example of something that escaped through editing is not an example of new canon. It's an example of an error that wasn't caught.

the fact that it wasn't caught by 3 or more people shows the restriction doesn't matter.

 

[Maxperson]

the fact that it wasn't caught by 3 or more people shows the restriction doesn't matter.

Please show your proof that it didn't just get past 3 people, which things often do in writing. And show your proof that he was the assassin class and not just a rogue that was assassinating people.

 

[Ringtail]

I said lore - which I stand by - but I definitely try to include the majority of player options within my lore.

At the very least I try to include everything in the Player's Handbook as a baseline. But I also don't sweat 1 or 2 things not making it in. There's so many options my players are bound to find something they want to play that I've also permitted in my setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Surprising. The vast majority of people who propose restrictions grant carte blanche grandfather clauses to Fellowship of the Ring races and the Core Four classes. That's a big part of why I get my back up so much on this; as I have said before, we play a hobby that allows us to do anything we can imagine...so naturally 99% of the time we repeat the same tired cliches and out-of-context "borrowings" from the one guy who actually put work into this group project.

Maybe people like those heritages. I know I do.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So you removed sorcerer and gave wizard its toys.

As usual, a post that begins with “So you…” can safely be ignored.

 

[Mort]

Is a nice philosophy to play by in many cases, but unfortunately it's not a universal response.

Some game worlds are not only defined by what's in them, but also by what's not in them. If a group plays in an explicitly low magic campaign/world, you can't just assume a player could come up with a powerful spellcasting character and it could/should be easily integrated into the game. Of course, it gets hairier when exclusions are implicit.

Well yes, Player input/PC options have to be proposed in good faith and likely still subject to certain bounds.

If the setting is no/low magic then proposing a "standard" 5e wizard wouldn't work.

Then again, if the setting is no/low magic and the player wants to play a "standard" wizard a full/typical "no" might be too hasty.

I might say "well alright, but if you do, you have to recognize that your magic doesn't work..." The wizard know how to do the magic but it doesn't work (the PC is essentially playing a spellcaster without spells, some players would be really up for the challenge). Figuring out why and having that be a grand mystery of the campaign could be a really great addition!

 

[billd91]

Here's the disconnect. I can't think of a reason that would feel so bad so as to cause push back from me. If that situation happened, and I showed up with a pre-built half orc, and had to start over? It'd be a little tedious, and I hope I wouldn't slow the game down, but I wouldn't argue with the DM about it. Even if I was given a "bad" reason, one I didn't care for, I'd still go along with it. I'm not showing up at the table unless I'm excited to play the game the DM wants to run, so I'm going to find a new character that fits.

I was really only trying to respond to the idea that most players won't go along with restriction if the reason isn't good. That doesn't seem correct to me. But, in typing this, obviously this is subjective, so I can't say you're wrong, just that it hasn't been my experience with any player I've seen.

Yeah, it's more of the Internet Forum Effect leading to discussions being dominated by positions far more polarized that people usually encounter in the wild.
I'd bet that if a DM pitched a campaign proposal and generated enough interest, 95% or more of the time players would come back with PCs compliant with outlined restrictions.