D&D 5E Do you restrict racial choices in your games?

[Jack Daniel]

I like human-centric games. I do have one old campaign setting that I seldom play in anymore, that canonically has 33 playable non-human races in it (and this is using a Basic/Expert derived system, so each of those races is also its own character class!), but nowadays I tend to restrict my settings to a much smaller number. One game that I'm running now has only four demihuman races in the setting (elves, dwarfs, goblins, and ogres—and only dwarfs were playable at the start of the campaign, but the party has since encountered an elf and a goblin as well, thereby "unlocking" those options for future characters), while another that I'm still working on has only three (leshi, domovoi, and strigoi).

 

[TheSword]

That's just it, though. Greyhawk doesn't have drow on the surface. It doesn't have dragonborn or tieflings as a part of existing cultures. Yes, that's because they didn't exist at all in the 70s, but that's still what the setting is. They exist in the player's handbook, but you'd need to do work to integrate them to Greyhawk as a playable race unless you just drop them in with no unique culture or attributes. If they haven't got any unique aspects or culture, why are they there at all? What is the player even interested in? Just the mechanics?

You can certainly use an existing setting as a blank slate to tell whatever stories your players want using whatever characters they can invent. You can just use an existing setting as a map and a kitchen sink. However, you can also use an existing setting for the provided tone, presentation, themes, and so on. For the stories and narrative that already exist. To make new stories that feel like they belong in the same setting and feature the same story elements.

Like if you want to play a dragonborn in Westeros, it would risk spoiling the tone of the existing setting because they don't exist there. There's no dragonborn homeland, no history of dragonborn culture, no wars or alliances between dragonborn and the human nations and so on, while existing cultures are recognizable. A character from Dorn is going to be very different than a character from the Iron Islands or Winterfell. What would a dragonborn be in order to be distinct? Why would they associate with the rest of the characters? Further, by making one of the PCs, of all characters, be a unique exception, it drastically changes the whole campaign.



Weren't you the one asking for an explanation?

No not really. I merely said the effort of excluding choices and justifying that is greater than the effort of not excluding them. No explanation needed for my benefit.

I see GMs spending a lot of time worried about things that don’t improve the gaming experience. It’s their/your table

 

[Greg K]

I am.

I once ran a campaign for five years where the only playable race was human. Gasp!

I did something similar (not D&D 5e)

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I generally restrict flying races in low level games for balance reasons. And kender because it's tailor-made for griefing and I don't want to have to deal with intra-party conflict. I might alter something like Yuan-ti, which I think has a notable powerjump over other PC races. Otherwise, not without VERY strong gameworld-based reasons - and even then I'm usually happy to work with the players' wishes. I might occasionally warn someone that "Drow in this area are often attacked on sight if recognized as such" though or that "We already have a paladin character in the party who might have issues with undead".

 

[Umbran]

Not usually. I typically allow whatever the players want, and build the world around that selection.

 

[auburn2]

I voted anything published, although by that I mean in one of the main sourcebooks: PHB, DMG, SCAG, XGE, TCE

The only exception is custom lineage is a case-by-case basis. We have not had anyone try that yet but in the games I DM if a character comes with an idea and he can pitch it along with a background and it does not appear to be metagaming I will go with with.

I think where this makes the most sense is if you want to move a secondary ASI - I want a Drow but I want to dump constitution and take the +1 in intelligence. I will likely allow that as long as the backstory makes sense.

I am less likely to allow the Halfling that is 6 foot tall with horns that looks like a Tiefling has a +2 bonus to strength and darkvision of 120'.

 

[Hussar]

Not usually. I typically allow whatever the players want, and build the world around that selection.

Yup. This is generally how I roll as well. Add in "modify/append the world" as well and you've got it.

I might do an elevator pitch for a certain selection of races, but, by and large, so long as the player wants to buy in, I'll let most things go.

 

[Flamestrike]

I pretty much run Faerun campaigns, so yeah. Anything goes.

 

[Azuresun]

I generally do it as--

--These are the common races / species.
--These ones work differently from their default presentation, here's what you need to know (ie, in my current Primeval Thule game, Yuan-Ti Purebloods represent humans with serpentfolk ancestry)
--These are almost unknown, but come up with a good background for your character, and it might work as a one-off--maybe your dragonborn character is an explorer or exile from a far-off land, maybe your warforged was created by this lost empire and recently revived, or they were a human who was transformed into a genasi through exposure to magic, or who became a shifter after nearly succumbing to lycanthropy.
--These are just plain not allowed (usually various flavours of elves).

 

[thom_likes_gaming]

I can't truthfully answer, as my take is "everything that I own for 5e is legit, and if it's in something I don't own, show me and sell me on it".
Which is how my Tyranny party came to include a Firbold and a Kalashtar-based bug person (by far the most off-road build I ever allowed).