I've used the 5e default of describing how common or rare each of the races are. For races in the PHB, I always include them even if they're very rare. For races in other books - such as the EEPC or the SCAG, I look to see if each race fits the setting before including them, but tend to include them unless there's a solid reason not to.
D&D 5E Access to Races in a Campaign
- Thread starter JohnLynch
- Start date
Twiggly the Gnome
Legend
JackOfAllTirades
Explorer
I consider D&D to be pretty much a "kitchen sink" fantasy game, and that's the way I run it. Unless it's going to completely break my game (which it isn't) I see no good reason to disallow it.
That's also the way I play, so when a GM tries to hand me a list of "banned" material with my favorite options on it, I generally just walk away. I've always got invites to play more games than I've got time for -- not really a bad problem to have -- so I can be choosy about playing with scrubby GM's.
That's also the way I play, so when a GM tries to hand me a list of "banned" material with my favorite options on it, I generally just walk away. I've always got invites to play more games than I've got time for -- not really a bad problem to have -- so I can be choosy about playing with scrubby GM's.
mestewart3
First Post
I do ban races if I have a strong theme I am going for (that I have discussed with my players before starting the game). One of my favorite homebrew settings is a Mediterranean game with (Greek) dragonborn, (Persian & Egyptian) tiefling, distant and scary (Roman) elves, and (sea people) humans.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I voted "no," though I'm tempted to unvote, as I suspect the question was somewhat ambiguous.
When I hear, "Do you restrict the playable races?" I interpret this as including an implicit "usually," or some other "almost all of the time"/"as a matter of general practice" kind of thing. And the answer to that would be a flat no. I'm not really a DM, but I like to think up story stuff a lot--and I never, ever specifically intend to limit the number or types of races. I may do so if, and only if, it feels appropriate; if I wish to highlight the differences of the setting from a "typical" fantasy setting, for example, or in the rare event that I'm going for a heavily "historical" campaign and want thatbland, bland sweet, sweet "human only" feel 
P).
However, on seeing many of the replies, it sounds like most people are interpreting the question as, "Do you ever even remotely consider restricting the playable races?" In which case the answer would be a clear yes. It's always a potential consideration. I'm not going to deny myself a tool like that--I'm just, IMO, much more cautious with its use than most other people.
See, this kind of thing I think is just lovely. I generally prefer to extend this to be slightly more "cultural," e.g. there is the Eusyccan League, where the dominant racial group is dragonborn, while tieflings are the significant majority in the Sultanate of Al Beira, and elves are the bellicose leaders of the so-called Lirian Republic (even though it's really been a de facto empire for a couple of centuries now, its Senate being a vestigial organ). Not trying to say that you, mestewart, do or do not do this--just clarifying my preferences.
For a completely different example, I have long entertained ideas of...an "East-West fusion" setting, that is, one that melds or layers together both European and Central/East Asian influences. So, for example, the tiefling-dominant culture is inspired by the Byzantines; the mainly-orc culture is Nordic; perhaps the mainly-dwarf one could draw heavily on Indian subcontinent cultures (especially the caste system); the dragonborn-led empire is strongly influenced by Japanese and Chinese ideas both martial and political (e.g. Daoist-influenced political structures, supported by a powerful military caste a la samurai); perhaps the human-dominant cultures could draw on Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa (I don't know these cultures well enough to give examples, but I'd do some research); since it's a bit of a trope at this point, the mostly-minotaur culture could be Aegean-inspired (e.g. Greek/Cretan) sail-centric; etc.
I also have a tendency to run on a "not yet, but perhaps" system, rather than a "no never" system. E.g. Q:"Are there gnolls in your setting?" A:"Not yet--but maybe! Perhaps Mirtul Khan has united the nomadic herding tribes of the west, and comes to bring terror and slaughter to the oh-so-high-and-mighty Lirian Republic."
When I hear, "Do you restrict the playable races?" I interpret this as including an implicit "usually," or some other "almost all of the time"/"as a matter of general practice" kind of thing. And the answer to that would be a flat no. I'm not really a DM, but I like to think up story stuff a lot--and I never, ever specifically intend to limit the number or types of races. I may do so if, and only if, it feels appropriate; if I wish to highlight the differences of the setting from a "typical" fantasy setting, for example, or in the rare event that I'm going for a heavily "historical" campaign and want that
P).However, on seeing many of the replies, it sounds like most people are interpreting the question as, "Do you ever even remotely consider restricting the playable races?" In which case the answer would be a clear yes. It's always a potential consideration. I'm not going to deny myself a tool like that--I'm just, IMO, much more cautious with its use than most other people.
See, this kind of thing I think is just lovely. I generally prefer to extend this to be slightly more "cultural," e.g. there is the Eusyccan League, where the dominant racial group is dragonborn, while tieflings are the significant majority in the Sultanate of Al Beira, and elves are the bellicose leaders of the so-called Lirian Republic (even though it's really been a de facto empire for a couple of centuries now, its Senate being a vestigial organ). Not trying to say that you, mestewart, do or do not do this--just clarifying my preferences.
For a completely different example, I have long entertained ideas of...an "East-West fusion" setting, that is, one that melds or layers together both European and Central/East Asian influences. So, for example, the tiefling-dominant culture is inspired by the Byzantines; the mainly-orc culture is Nordic; perhaps the mainly-dwarf one could draw heavily on Indian subcontinent cultures (especially the caste system); the dragonborn-led empire is strongly influenced by Japanese and Chinese ideas both martial and political (e.g. Daoist-influenced political structures, supported by a powerful military caste a la samurai); perhaps the human-dominant cultures could draw on Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa (I don't know these cultures well enough to give examples, but I'd do some research); since it's a bit of a trope at this point, the mostly-minotaur culture could be Aegean-inspired (e.g. Greek/Cretan) sail-centric; etc.
I also have a tendency to run on a "not yet, but perhaps" system, rather than a "no never" system. E.g. Q:"Are there gnolls in your setting?" A:"Not yet--but maybe! Perhaps Mirtul Khan has united the nomadic herding tribes of the west, and comes to bring terror and slaughter to the oh-so-high-and-mighty Lirian Republic."
Last edited:
Wik
First Post
I generally allow anything. But there's a twist.
First, I tell the players what's common in my campaign world, provide backstory, and all that fun stuff. If they want to do something different, we figure out how it originates... and I make room for it in my campaign.
This has meant that my campaign world has gone in some weird directions - minotaurs searching for a homeworld, drow being feywild hunters and political manipulators, genasi running an empire to the south, and now an army of awakened animals being animated by a rogue druid for some unknown purpose. All of those changes happened because a player came up to me and said "can I play an X"?
Now, I don't allow certain races if they seem overpowered. So, no Aarakocra (they'd be super powerful in my games). But as a general rule? I always try to say "yes".
It's the players' world, too.
First, I tell the players what's common in my campaign world, provide backstory, and all that fun stuff. If they want to do something different, we figure out how it originates... and I make room for it in my campaign.
This has meant that my campaign world has gone in some weird directions - minotaurs searching for a homeworld, drow being feywild hunters and political manipulators, genasi running an empire to the south, and now an army of awakened animals being animated by a rogue druid for some unknown purpose. All of those changes happened because a player came up to me and said "can I play an X"?
Now, I don't allow certain races if they seem overpowered. So, no Aarakocra (they'd be super powerful in my games). But as a general rule? I always try to say "yes".
It's the players' world, too.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
Any option that is designed for player use is allowed - but that doesn't mean that every one of those options is made to fit cleanly in the setting, so picking something that is strange for the setting - example, being a dragonborn in Mystara where there has never really been such a thing likely means your character is a visitor from another world - means that the player has to accept that the character is going to be confused for something else, treated as strange by those that realize they aren't "from here", and potentially running into language barriers if what they speak isn't analogous to something in-setting.
I would rather spend the effort letting a player play the character they want to than spend the effort convincing them to want something else.
I would rather spend the effort letting a player play the character they want to than spend the effort convincing them to want something else.
Not only do I limit races, but I'll limit sub-races and classes. The purpose of this is based solely on the setting, both the region and NPC attitudes (for example, I banned drow and non-fey warlocks in my current campaign at start, because their patron simply wouldn't have hired them).
Sometimes I'll allow things, informing the players that they will suffer (sometimes severe) role-playing difficulties. A good example is Tiefling in my Greyhawk game. I modified it back to the 2E/3E appearance (because I HATE the obvious fiend look), and let players know that if their true nature is revealed, they will likely be hunted down and killed.
Sometimes I'll allow things, informing the players that they will suffer (sometimes severe) role-playing difficulties. A good example is Tiefling in my Greyhawk game. I modified it back to the 2E/3E appearance (because I HATE the obvious fiend look), and let players know that if their true nature is revealed, they will likely be hunted down and killed.
rollingForInit
First Post
I voted "no" because I interpreted the question as referring to what is usually done. I really wouldn't want to ban any race. If, in a campaign I've designed, a certain race would be extremely difficult to manage, I might ban it. For thematic reasons, not mechanical. But I don't think I'd actually design a campaign that didn't allow for all races that currently exist.
Similar Threads
- Locked
