D&D 5E Access to Races in a Campaign

[the Jester]

Yes I do.

Restriction: No Drow.

Reasoning: Drow are monsters, not pcs. I like them mysterious and largely unknown; they don't pop up every 3 adventures, like in some campaigns. They appear very rarely, nobody knows much about them, and they are like the 1e take on them pre-UA.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Demonspell]

I generally do not, and I am fairly liberal with using monsters as races as well, because to me, as the DM I should be able to determine what makes a level 1 dragon just as easily as a level 1 human. Now, seldom do any of my players ever ask to play a monster, but I have actually gone through the 5e monster manual, and taken nearly every humanoid monster and converted it into a PC version for my world. I have an entire nation where drow, orcs, humans, high elves, gnomes, halflings, and mindflayers walk around reasonably peacefully together.

I don't restrict it because, like in our world, races intermingle. One race may be persecuted in nation, but that doesn't mean they are going to avoid it. It just means their life is harder there. It add a neat roleplaying component that adds to the story and my campaigns are ALWAYS about the story.

 

[Demonspell]

If the DM doesn't like a race (or a bunch of races*) she is - or most certainly should be - fully within her rights to ban it (them).

I don't disagree with this, but I would argue that if you are that stuck on something, you are missing out on the opportunity for excellent roleplaying that can make a fantastic story.

Because if the presence or absence of one or more races is a make-or-break issue for someone most games can survive the loss of a player - but no game can survive the loss of its DM. And if the game isn't fun for its own DM it ain't gonna last very long.

You are wrong again, in the campaign I am currently running, the original DM quit, because my character had a strong attachment to his hometown, and its residents. I refused to abandon the city in its time of need and trapse across the world in hopes that we might find allies. He got upset because I wouldn't follow his narrative, and I convinced the rest of the party that spending three months travelling left a lot of suffering in this city that we had a responsiblity to avoid. He handed me all his documentation and told me that if I knew better than he did he was leaving. He walked out and that was that.

It took me a month to read through his documentation, and figure out how to re-work the scenario under the given circumstances, and to convince him to come back and play a character instead. He rolled up a character, and after running it, he has admitted that I am a better DM, I tend to roll with the punches and handle players not following my plan much better than he is. He also points out that when we do leave my defined path somehow we always end up back on the path before the end of out sessions. I just smile, and say, that's part of the story we are telling.

* - Ditto for classes, for all that; a DM I've been playing with for over 30 years banned Paladins in his games about that long ago mostly because he just doesn't like them (not to mention that when they were played they never really fit in).

Again, I think you are missing out on tons of great story-telling opporunities by doing that. I have allowed players to play paladins for evil dieties simply because I liked their idea and I saw a story in it that would be epic if they roleplayed it right.

 

[Demonspell]

For the people that say 'allow anything or you are doing it wrong' do you allow anything from outside the PHB, like the MM or just pure imagination or is it the PHB that makes it special? I wonder because the PHB specifically calls out a bunch of races to double check to ensure they are part of the game.

What if warforged were in the PHB? or giants, or thri-kreen, is there any race you could think of that could be in there that you or your group would disallow?

As I said in a different post, I am fairly liberal in my handling of race. I believe that everu monster should be able to be leveled up starting from level 1, and I sat down with the 5e MM shortly after it was released to determine how most of the humanoids would work as a race in my world. I have a huge list of races, and subraces that are opened. Granted if a player wants to play a Sahaugin Malenti, and the campaign is mostly land based then that won't work, but other than that I can figure out a way to work with the player.

In my world, I have about 30 playable races that I allow, and many of those have multiple subraces as well. It makes character creation challenging, but offers endless roleplaying and story-telling opportunities that my players enjoy.

The game is a collaborative storytelling effort and I think compromise amongst everyone involved is necessary for it to work. Or put another way, certain races or other choices can have a negative impact on others' fun.

I have never had this experience, though I could see a situation were a player wanted to play a Sea Elf, and their adventuring through a forest where the nearest source of water is miles away and that leading to an issue.

If a new player shows up to our group and wants to play a tielfing, I say no, and it is okay if that is a deal breaker. We are all happier for it.

I also play in a group where the majority of PCs tend to be human because the players find that demi-humans limit their creativity. Other groups differ and that is okay.

Those options are fine, however, by forbidding a race you limit your roleplaying options to a defined set of parameters. That could mean you are missing out on a great story.

 

[Demonspell]

Some of the built-in thematic elements of certain races sucks. There I said it. It's pigeon-holed and type-cast so far into a corner that including the race forces you to include the racial elements. I mean I've resolved the thematic issues by completely refluffing the races, but that's a massive PITA.

EX: I wanted to include dark elves but I didn't want traditional "dark fae" and I didn't want Drow, so I had to completely re-invent the wheel. I ended up with a South-American styled "jungle elf". It was nothing like the Drow so the thematic elements were completely thrown out the window anyway.

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

Or: I resolved to include Dwarves for a change, but instead of them being mountain-dwelling folks I made the island dwelling folks, something akin to a cross between pygmies and Jamacians. So...thematic elements? What thematic elements! I threw them right out the window.

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!!

And: When I do include gnomes, they're more traditional fae, where everything is a joke and the punchline to a joke is someone dies.

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?

Yes, I could have included stock Drow and stock dwarves and stock gnomes, with stock thematic flavor, but honestly when I sit down with players and they tell me they want to play a stocky, grumpy drunk with a napoelon complex and a love for rocks with a bad foreign accent I ask them: why can't you be all that and be a human? Why does that have to be a dwarf? And the answer is simply that they hadn't stopped to consider it.

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.

Dragonborn thematic flavor? Ancient race from god-knows-where? It sucks.

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

Tiefling thematic flavor? The world hates you. It sucks.

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

Half-orc soft-rape baby flavor? It sucks.

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.

The forced Greyhawk flavor in 5e? It double-sucks.

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.

The flavor in 5E sucks if you want to step outside the Forgotten Realms for more than 5 minutes. If someone wants to play the thematic flavor straight from the book, I'll flat out tell them they're at the wrong table.

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

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.

 

[Demonspell]

"He just doesn't like it" is not the same thing as "Stronger narrative themes". I have run a few games where the options are limited to Dragonborn (the Drakoides in my setting, fun bit of ancient Greek wordplay), Tiefling, Humans, and Elves. I do this because I have created a specific world that needs this restriction, not because I dislike Dwarves. I would never ban an option from my table solely because I don't like it thematically.

When I design my campaigns, I usually have set roles that I need filled.

EX. My current campaign had five roles, the Abonimation, the Noble, the Wanderer, the Seer, and the Worshipper. In this case the worshipper is a Dwarven wizard, and the roleplaying fun we have as he debates the merits of arcane magic versus divine magic with the party noble creates some great stories.

I love listening to my players figure out how to fit their character archetypes into the roles I have established. It gets them interested and allows them to figure out how they fit into the story. Making my job a lot easier.

 

[Demonspell]

Why do you need to be a specific race to be a specific archetype? Proud warriors come in all species. Obnoxious thieving s do too. I've just generally found that the archetypes that don't mesh well in a group or a setting often come paired with certain races.

You don't need a specific ract to be a specific archetype, but its so much more fun rather than being the human I am every day when I wake up. That is the point of roleplaying in the first place. Becoming something you aren't and developing a collaberative story from there. That is what makes it fun, and that is what draws people to our beloved hobby.

 

[Noctem]

Oh I remembered something about a previous campaign I DM'ed while reading the hate for gnomes part. During a 2 year Eberron campaign I replaced all gnomes with Kobolds.. Kobolds everywhere!

Yip! Yip yip! Soca no hurt huuumans. Soca good kobold! Yip! Me just cook for slave driver... yip.. Me cook for you now! Make lizard stew! Soca good kobold now! You see! Yip yip!

Aaah good times Rp'ing that little cook as the DM.

 

[Demonspell]

Oh I remembered something about a previous campaign I DM'ed while reading the hate for gnomes part. During a 2 year Eberron campaign I replaced all gnomes with Kobolds.. Kobolds everywhere!

Yip! Yip yip! Soca no hurt huuumans. Soca good kobold! Yip! Me just cook for slave driver... yip.. Me cook for you now! Make lizard stew! Soca good kobold now! You see! Yip yip!

Aaah good times Rp'ing that little cook as the DM.

That sounds like a it made for a great story and it something I would have most definately encouraged my players to try.