D&D 5E Access to Races in a Campaign

[Sunseeker]

As far as I'm concerned, when a GM says he doesn't want a certain option in his campaign because "he just doesn't like it", what he's telling me is that enforcing his little pet peeves is more important to him than letting his players have fun.

Bad GM, no dice.

I tend to agree, and given that it's MY WORLD you guys are playing it, it shouldn't be difficult for me to invent an in-game reason for the absence of a race, creature, class or any other restriction. It could be as simple as "dwarves don't exist on this world". Which, due to a string of "I'm so awesome because I sound like a drunk scottsman!!" dwarf players, I stopped allowing dwarves in my games. But I at least said "they don't exist on this world" and not "I don't like them and I'm in charge!"

 

[Talmek]

Nah...

I'll allow anything in the PHB, and negotiate anything outside it.

Want to be a half-giant/half-dragonborn/half-drow/half-PITA? Just have a fantastic backstory and be prepared for the "LOVE" when you enter a town and no one has ever seen something like you before...

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

As long as the different race does not unfairly give that player an advantage over the other players, is not something we have to dedicate a rediculously inordimate amount of in game time trying to keep it alive, as every single townsperson/constabulary will want him dead on sight, and as long as they have a reasonable explaination as to how and why it is where nothing like it should be - then I'll let it be playtested for awhile to see how it works with the story. The story, in our game is everything. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fly.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I tend to agree, and given that it's MY WORLD you guys are playing it, it shouldn't be difficult for me to invent an in-game reason for the absence of a race, creature, class or any other restriction. It could be as simple as "dwarves don't exist on this world". Which, due to a string of "I'm so awesome because I sound like a drunk scottsman!!" dwarf players, I stopped allowing dwarves in my games. But I at least said "they don't exist on this world" and not "I don't like them and I'm in charge!"

It's...pretty hard to see the difference between those two things. Dwarves don't exist in that world...because you have developed a perception that they cannot be played well/interestingly, and you're the one who gets to decide what's in it or not in it...or, more succinctly, "you don't like them" and "you're in charge." If you had never had anything but awesome, fun, interesting Dwarves in prior games, would they still be non-existent in the world you speak of? If the answer's "no," then I see no difference whatsoever between that and "you can't play X because I said so."

Though I will at least give you credit--pretty substantial credit, even--for banning a so-called "common" race.

 

[Morrus]

As far as I'm concerned, when a GM says he doesn't want a certain option in his campaign because "he just doesn't like it", what he's telling me is that enforcing his little pet peeves is more important to him than letting his players have fun.

Bad GM, no dice.

Not really. If all settings are kitchen sink settings, their leaves very little room for creativity. Tolkien doesn't have dragonborn wandering around.

It's fine to only enjoy one type of setting, but calling anybody who prefers stronger narrative themes in their settings a bad DM is deeply unfair.

 

[mestewart3]

"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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not really. If all settings are kitchen sink settings, their leaves very little room for creativity. Tolkien doesn't have dragonborn wandering around.

It's fine to only enjoy one type of setting, but calling anybody who prefers stronger narrative themes in their settings a bad DM is deeply unfair.

Fully backing mestewart's post ("I hate X so you can't have it" =/= "prefers stronger narrative themes"), but thought I'd add a little bit myself: You make it sound as though the debate is between "any amount of restriction whatsoever, for any reason, ever" and "never ever restrict anything at all because all options are present and well-known always." That's not the kind of discussion I've seen, here or elsewhere, when this topic is broached.

The way most people actually speak about it is exactly the reverse: every single universe is, and should be Tolkienesque, unless you give a fantastically good explanation for why it's not. Which is just as bad. If all settings are Tolkienesque settings, it leaves very little room for creativity. Skyrim doesn't have dwarves wandering around.

Edit:
And moreover, your presentation simply continues the exact same ghetto-izing concept that I complained about earlier, albeit with different words. Liking dragonborn does not, even in the least, entail liking "kitchen sink" settings. Neither more nor less than liking dwarves, tieflings, elves, cat-people, halflings, space goats, or any other concept you can name. If we're going to talk about unfairness of arguments, it cuts both ways: liking things with less history or tradition doesn't mean I like absolute kitchen sinks. Because I don't. Most "absolute" kitchen sink settings (100% of everything is present and well-known everywhere in it) are incredibly boring, because they do bland-ify everything.

Of course, I also think that the rampant overuse of Tolkienesque concepts (elves and dwarves in particular) has bland-ified them, too, but that's far more open to debate than the above.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's...pretty hard to see the difference between those two things. Dwarves don't exist in that world...because you have developed a perception that they cannot be played well/interestingly, and you're the one who gets to decide what's in it or not in it...or, more succinctly, "you don't like them" and "you're in charge." If you had never had anything but awesome, fun, interesting Dwarves in prior games, would they still be non-existent in the world you speak of? If the answer's "no," then I see no difference whatsoever between that and "you can't play X because I said so."

Though I will at least give you credit--pretty substantial credit, even--for banning a so-called "common" race.

I rarely include dwarves in any game, mostly because they come with so much fluff baggage. Including dwarves IMO is almost as bad as including Drow. Typically gnomes and halflings get the same treatment, but mostly because I can never find an appropriate place for them in my gameworlds. So humans, elves(so many elves!), half-elves (who I don't limit to being half-human half-generic-elf), half-orcs (who likewise don't need to be half-human, half-orc) tieflings (using variant rules from SCAG and Pathfinder Blood of Fiends), aasimar (Blood of Angels conversion) and damphir (Pathfinder Blood of the Night conversion) are my typical world races. Dragonborn sometimes exist if the setting is magical enough or dragons play a substantial plot role, same for Genasi. Dwarves sometimes exist if I'm doing a more kitchen-sink game.

I really don't like Dwarves, Gnomes or Halflings. If someone really wants to play that race I'll honestly ask them if they want to play it because they want to play up all the elements I find insanely annoying (which is precisely why I don't want people playing them) or if they want the mechanical benefits.

Even if "sorry that race doesn't exist in this realm" comes across much the same as "I don't like them so you can't play them." It's not like my world is missing something for them not being there. It was designed without them. There are fantasy creatures from the book that aren't playable that don't exist in my worlds either. I typically don't include Illithids, Gith, Drow, or Beholders or heck half the things the MM lists. But noone whines about that because they're not playable? It's not like I'm targetting people. I tell people clearly in advance what is or isn't playable, I'm not going to surprise them with it.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, I often restrict races - or rather, I pick the races that exist in the campaign world I'm designing, and everything else is banned by default. (If a player really wants to play something that's not on the list, I'll consider it, but I make no promises.) Nor do I regard elves'n'dwarves'n'halflings as belonging to a special category. They still have to justify their existence in the setting, same as tieflings and dragonborn and warforged and homebrewed anthropomorphic mole-mantis hybrids. The only race that I feel I'd need to justify excluding is humans.

The campaign I'm gearing up for right now is humans-only.

 

[ad_hoc]

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?

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.

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.