D&D 5E Access to Races in a Campaign

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...most games can survive the loss of a player - but no game can survive the loss of its DM.

As a DM, I absolutely hate seeing this elevation of the DM as some kind of special type of person that isn't just another player at the table to be considered equal to all others.

It is one of many things that lead to the bulk of players believing that they can't just decide to be a DM and then have it be so, and that is bad for the hobby.

And if the game isn't fun for its own DM it ain't gonna last very long.

That much is true - but I still think that elevating "player has a race/class I don't like" to the level of "ruins my fun" is more about the DM taking a power trip (i.e. "I am the DM and don't have to allow things that I'm not a big fan of, so I'm not going to no matter what my players think.") than it is about actually disliking that option so much that you can't even handle ignoring that someone else is using it.

 

[JohnLynch]

That isn't always the case though - some folks will actually have their fun spoiled if they have to come up with some other character than the one that they first thought up and were really excited about playing.

This might work great for games where there is no pre-established setting and it's made up on the spot, but this is where a lot of us are getting disconnect. We wait until we find out about the game before we make a character. So this would never actually happen. After all if I say "Would you like to play a game of D&D..." and then the person blurts out "I want to be a gnome cleric devoted to Waukeen" before I get to finish and say "...set in Dark Sun using the 2nd edition books as our bible" there will be no gnomes let alone clerics of Waukeen, some would argue I should find a way to "make it work".

What if I said "Would you like to play a game of Dark Sun..." and the person blurts out "I want to be a templar who is devoted to the sorcerer king of Tyr and would never, ever betray the sorcerer king and I get to stomp down on the common man and crush them in the iron fist of the law" before I get to say "where everyone is playing heroes seeking to overthrow the sorcerer-king"? I could let the templar player play his character, and he'll constantly be at odds with the rest of the group and ultimately ruin everyone's fun. Or I could cut to the chase and tell the person if they aren't flexible enough to play a different character they're probably going to ruin their own fun and everyone else's fun as well.

I've actually been in a game where the DM let me play a character that did not fit in with the group and the adventure path. Rather than warn me that my character wouldn't be able to engage in the game on the level that I wanted and that there would be much frustration as my efforts ran counter to the entire campaign, I could have changed my character and happily played something else. Instead I was permitted to play the character and the game was far from an enjoyable experience and we ended up canceling the game due to that frustration.

 

[Lanefan]

As a DM, I absolutely hate seeing this elevation of the DM as some kind of special type of person that isn't just another player at the table to be considered equal to all others.

As both player and DM I fail to see how the game can work without a DM.

It is one of many things that lead to the bulk of players believing that they can't just decide to be a DM and then have it be so, and that is bad for the hobby.

Disagree. I'd say players who do not want to be DMs have a variety of reasons for it...lack of time and-or commitment and limited confidence with rules knowledge being but two...but I'd be very surprised if non-equality was a reason except in the rarest of cases.

That much is true - but I still think that elevating "player has a race/class I don't like" to the level of "ruins my fun" is more about the DM taking a power trip (i.e. "I am the DM and don't have to allow things that I'm not a big fan of, so I'm not going to no matter what my players think.") than it is about actually disliking that option so much that you can't even handle ignoring that someone else is using it.

Er...if I'm the DM and it's in my game it's by definition part of my job to not ignore it. Then again, if I'm the DM and something I dislike is in my game it's on me as I shouldn't have let it get there in the first place; but now it's there I kinda have to live with it.

Any obvious bannings need to be done before the puck drops on the campaign, without question. I'm a big believer in precedent - if something's appeared in a campaign then for internal consistency you can't really ban it later - so the only chance to stop something is before it shows up. I'm not a Gnome fan; I made them rare in my current campaign but didn't ban them completely and a few have appeared as PCs, and if another one shows up so be it. I'm not a dragonborn fan either; but as none of those have yet appeared (in fact they had only just started to exist as a PC race when my current campaign began) I can state with confidence that none will as they don't exist in my game. Mind Flayers, on the other hand, do exist; but they too are banned as PCs.

Players always have the final decision as to whether they're going to play in a game or not the way it stands, or start their own and change things to their own preference, or not play at all. But that decision by each individual only affects them; and only if all (or almost all) the players decide to go elsewhere does it affect the DM. However the DM's decision to be involved or not (or, if remaining involved, to be engaged or not) affects the whole table.

And it's not a matter of "ruins my fun" - I'm a bit more easygoing than that. But I do have preferences, and when I run a game those are the preferences that game will show. If someone else has other preferences to the point they won't play in my game, that's cool; and if they turn around and start their own game more power to 'em.

Lanefan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...this is where a lot of us are getting disconnect.

Where we seem to be having a disconnect is that our assumptions are different entirely. You are assuming a player is coming up with an idea that doesn't remotely fit to the campaign being run - and I'm assuming that the player has been told what the campaign requires of characters and has said "I'd like to play a bit outside of that."

To use your examples to clarify: "I want to be a gnome cleric devoted to Waukeen," in a Dark Sun game would not be met with me saying "No," but rather with "The reach of gods does not extend to Athas, so your character would have to be from another world entirely and have been transported there, we'll work out how exactly in a moment, but would also mean that you are cut off from your clerical powers entirely so we'd build the character as a different class to represent relying on what your cleric learned besides how to wield divine magic." And it is entirely up to the player if they want to go that route or build a native Athasian character.

When it comes to one player wanting to play "on the other team," that gets discussed by the participants in the game and exactly how much and what kind of player vs. player conflict is considered cool can be included - whether it is as little as one character being "evil" meaning that there are frustrated philosophical debates among party members from time to time, or as much as full-on separate teams scheming against each other and enacting plots to assassinate each other.

Of course, I don't just let players build whatever they want without helping them have appropriate expectations as to what that will mean in the campaign - that's an entirely different issue, though.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

As both player and DM I fail to see how the game can work without a DM.

Let's use my group as an anecdote: We've been playing together for nearly a decade now, but when I first moved here and joined the group they had a DM and were already an established group.

That DM did things that all of us found unfun, and so we all agreed he'd not be the DM anymore and I started DMing for the group instead. Just like play could have kept on if one player left, we could keep playing without that DM because one of us could take over.

Disagree. I'd say players who do not want to be DMs have a variety of reasons for it...lack of time and-or commitment and limited confidence with rules knowledge being but two...but I'd be very surprised if non-equality was a reason except in the rarest of cases.

Lack of time is not a valid reason, a DM can run an enjoyable game with no more time invested into it than the players.
Commitment is also not required to be any higher for a DM than it is for a player, so that's not a valid reason either.
Confidence with rules knowledge is also not actually required to be a successful DM - it can be replaced with either the confidence that messing up the rules doesn't actually matter that much, or by having the group work together to keep the rules straight. So that's another not actually valid reason.

All of why a player doesn't think they can DM, besides "I do not enjoy it", is usually BS believed because some DM along the way in that gamer's life played up how much effort and skill and time were mandatory to be a DM in order to enforce their power over their players and leverage to get their own way instead of having to treat their players as being of equal importance.

Being a DM is no more of a special skill or position of authority than running the bank during a game of Monopoly.

Er...if I'm the DM and it's in my game it's by definition part of my job to not ignore it.

I think you are confused about what I mean.

Let's use my dislike of gnomes as an example: I don't like them. Not one bit. I'd be perfectly happy if the game had never included them in the first place, I'll never play one, including that if someone reincarnates my character as a gnome I'll declare my character's soul unwilling to return.

...but if a player wants to play a gnome because they think gnomes are cool, I'll let them, and I'll just not think about what race their character is at all - they could just as easily be a halfling or a shorter than normal dwarf, elf, a goblin even, because I'm not dwelling on that they are a gnome because I don't actually have to keep bringing it up to remind the player their character is a gnome, and there isn't anything I have to add to the game in order for the player to feel like they are playing a gnome.

I basically see three options, with three outcomes:
1) Ban what I don't like - resulting in me having fun, but anyone that likes things that were banned having reduced fun.
2) Allow things I don't like and not let them affect me by not dwelling on them - resulting in me having fun, and anyone that likes things I don't like having fun too.
3) Allow things I don't like and let them ruin the fun for me - resulting in no one at the table having fun because a DM's bad time is contagious like the plague.

Which I will choose 2 every time because my goal as a DM is not just for me to have fun, or for the whole group to have some fun, but for the whole group to have as much fun as we possibly can.

 

[JohnLynch]

You are assuming a player is coming up with an idea that doesn't remotely fit to the campaign being run - and I'm assuming that the player has been told what the campaign requires of characters and has said "I'd like to play a bit outside of that."

The difference between "a bit outside of that" and "doesn't remotely fit the campaign" is in the eye of the beholder.

To use your examples to clarify: "I want to be a gnome cleric devoted to Waukeen," in a Dark Sun game would not be met with me saying "No," but rather with "The reach of gods does not extend to Athas, so your character would have to be from another world entirely and have been transported there, we'll work out how exactly in a moment, but would also mean that you are cut off from your clerical powers entirely so we'd build the character as a different class to represent relying on what your cleric learned besides how to wield divine magic." And it is entirely up to the player if they want to go that route or build a native Athasian character.

You've used a lot of words but you've just told me (as the hypothetical eager player) that I don't get to play a Cleric of Waukeen which was the first idea I was really excited about.

Of course, I don't just let players build whatever they want without helping them have appropriate expectations as to what that will mean in the campaign - that's an entirely different issue, though.

I think some of the people here who appear to disagree actually agree but are simply using different words to ultimately describe the same outcome.

 

[JohnLynch]

Lack of time is not a valid reason, a DM can run an enjoyable game with no more time invested into it than the players.

I think the implication that any DM can run an enjoyable game with no more time invested than what occurs at the table with the players is a disservice to any DM that doesn't actually have the skill to do this. I've tried to run games with no prep time and I can safely say the game WAS NOT as enjoyable as it was when I did take time to prepare for the game. I might be able to learn the skill but that's not what this quote implies.

Ban what I don't like - resulting in me having fun, but anyone that likes things that were banned having reduced fun.

The assumption this is based is on is not universally true. I like playing Warforged. My fun is not reduced when I play games where Warforged are not available (in fact, my fun would be reduced by trying to shoehorn a Warforged into a game where they do not belong).

 

[S'mon]

I don't allow tieflings, as they are not very Greyhawk.

Horned Society?

Personally I have no problem with GMs limiting player races. I might not want to play in an all-halfling game, but it doesn't offend me. All-human would be fine.

 

[S'mon]

I've actually been in a game where the DM let me play a character that did not fit in with the group and the adventure path. Rather than warn me that my character wouldn't be able to engage in the game on the level that I wanted and that there would be much frustration as my efforts ran counter to the entire campaign, I could have changed my character and happily played something else. Instead I was permitted to play the character and the game was far from an enjoyable experience and we ended up canceling the game due to that frustration.

Yes, I had that experience a bit, playing a northern crusader in an Al Qadim game.
I generally disagree with the "players must have their fun - GMs must find a way to make it work" advocates; IME this generally means less fun for everyone. I find that GMs not making expectations clear is a bigger problem. Eg I've advertised a game as "Conanesque swords & sorcery" and got a bunch of Warlock type characters, when it would have worked better with mostly Fighters, Barbarians and the occasional Rogue - I just didn't emphasise that enough I think.

 

[Becouse]

I'm about to run Out of The Abyss sometime in the future. How do you think can I suggest new races to the players? Deep gnomes fits well I think in OoTA. But what about others - aarakocra, genasi and goliaths? Or this races only for Elemental Evil campaign?