D&D 5E Greyhawk, and race options for Oerth PCs

[hawkeyefan]

I think a big part of this may be if you’re playing with players who are new to you. It sounds to me like @Zardnaar plays with multiple groups or at least sees some good deal of player turnover in his games. In those cases, I expect that it’s easy to be on guard for players who may be problematic.

I play with a regular group of friends. So the idea that anyone would really cause such problems seems insane to me. Not that we can’t still have some issues, but it’s usually easily worked out.

I still don’t think that most restrictions are all that meaningful as many think, but I suppose the actual table situation can be a big factor on that. I’d never ban an evil PC. But I know my players aren’t going to play a disruptive evil character who works against the party for their own kicks. But a new player at a game run in a store? Who can say until you get going?

 

[Zardnaar]

I think a big part of this may be if you’re playing with players who are new to you. It sounds to me like @Zardnaar plays with multiple groups or at least sees some good deal of player turnover in his games. In those cases, I expect that it’s easy to be on guard for players who may be problematic.

I play with a regular group of friends. So the idea that anyone would really cause such problems seems insane to me. Not that we can’t still have some issues, but it’s usually easily worked out.

I still don’t think that most restrictions are all that meaningful as many think, but I suppose the actual table situation can be a big factor on that. I’d never ban an evil PC. But I know my players aren’t going to play a disruptive evil character who works against the party for their own kicks. But a new player at a game run in a store? Who can say until you get going?

I play at a gamestore started in August. First time in 25 years I've played there.

Just lost a player, known him for 10 years.

I'm the last DM left from August. One group self destructed last session. My games are stable and no drama for the owner who organises things.

We turn up 90% of the time, let him know when wexant make it and I don't go and complain to him about stupid crap.

Lowest turn over in the shop.

 

[Ringtail]

So, if someone wants to play a Wookie, or an Andorian, or a Narn, etc. you'd be fine with it? If someone wants to play Roland Deschain and there ain't no guns in your setting? If someone wants to play Doctor Manhattan and you're running Middle Earth? If someone wants to play a Gnome and you're running Dark Sun in the Age of Sorcerer-Kings? If someone wants to play a Cleric and you're running Dragonlance before The War of the Lance? If someone wants to play an Ithorian Jedi who has crash landed on the planet and you're running A Game of Thrones?

Stories have tone. Characters have settings that they belong to and settings they do not belong to. It's perfectly okay for certain characters to simply not belong in a given campaign. That's okay. Stick that character back in your binder and play them next time.

Yes, but now you're taking my quote waaaay out of context with crazy exaggerations. I mean within the bounds of D&D. I really like Tabaxi. So naturally I was quite bummed when my friend said there were no Tabaxi in his homebrew world. However, he still has drow and tieflings and dragonborn et al so his world is obviously high fantasy. No, IMO including Tabaxi doesn't drastically change the tone of his game, not like adding laser guns to a fantasy game (something which is done quite often in D&D.) Now I didn't complain or anything, its his world and its his to do as he pleases. Doesn't mean I still wasn't disappointed.

So, no, you can't play a Wookie in D&D, but that's ridiculous anyway because wookies don't exist in D&D. But Dragonborn, Tieflings, Tabaxi and all these other races do. And that's what I'm talking about, player options that are presented in official books. There is a sense that since its official you should be allowed to play it. It is also true that a DM is within their rights to restrict these options, but like I said, doesn't mean a player won't be mildly disappointed their favorite subclass or spell or race got axed.

 

[Dire Bare]

So, no, you can't play a Wookie in D&D, but that's ridiculous anyway because wookies don't exist in D&D. But Dragonborn, Tieflings, Tabaxi and all these other races do. And that's what I'm talking about, player options that are presented in official books. There is a sense that since its official you should be allowed to play it. It is also true that a DM is within their rights to restrict these options, but like I said, doesn't mean a player won't be mildly disappointed their favorite subclass or spell or race got axed.

Oh, if you asked, you could totally play a Wookie in my game! We'll use the Goliath racial stats, your character will be super tall & hairy, come from a forest with giant trees (already have that in my campaign) instead of the mountains, and you can only communicate with the other players using growls and hand gestures! I suggest a giant crossbow as your main weapon, and since we have skyships, I'll also suggest a knack for piloting! Your best friend and hetero life-partner is the charming, wise-cracking rogue (who has a secret heart-of-gold)!

But seriously, if a player really did ask to play a Wookie in my D&D game (even one that isn't a carbon-copy of Chewbacca), I would totally make that happen. Why not?

 

[Coroc]

@ all above , do not want to cite everyone:

I play a different system also, namely DSA. It is much more roleplay focused and it has got the mechanics and lore for it. It is normally mega-true to canon, but that is normally no problem because the canon is helpful for the RP part.

It is low magic in a way. It has a very detailed skill system, you can play basically every "class" you like, be it a baker or a dancer.

It has got humans, dwarves and elves with several subcultures for each race, humans have the most of them.

Many people only play human, I recently started a dwarf which is quite similar to the D&D dwarf (that subculture at least), this is not so difficult to rp still it is more challenge than a human.

The elves in that system also have similarities to D&D in that they are longlived, natureloving and great artists and singers. They even have a kind of song-language.
The guy who is the DM for this campaign got 20 years experience with that system, and profound system mastery. He is an expert roleplayer, he does dialogues between NPCs using different voices and such.
Still he says he does not know, if he really could roleplay an elf correctly, in really as intended.


And that is the beef I sometimes have with those people (not my players, they prefer humans quite often anyway, because they like being true in their roleplaying):

If they at least would admit, that the reason for their choice is more often for mechanical reasons or for liking the look or flair of a race, which they still play like a human instead of accusing the DM being not flexible.

There is no problem with someone not feeling good at RP but still wanting to play an elf or dragonborn, but there is a problem if someone claims the DM is single viewed for disallowing one or more of the races in his campaign, even if they are part of the core 4 or PHB. Those books are neither the law nor the bible.

 

[Hussar]

But the bolded part is kind of the point of why a lot of DMs don't allow other races. Most of the time people just play the same human-with-a-rubber-mask character anyway. It's not really surprising, it's what we know. But if it's not going to make a difference in the PC that you play other than perhaps some perceived mechanical advantage, why does it matter?

As far as allowing every race, I simply don't want to run a kitchen sink campaign. I try to run a campaign that's basically "what would it be like if there were magic and monsters?" I just don't see dozens of races running around making a lot of sense. Heck, I've considered eliminating halfings because they don't really add a lot and they just feel like short humans.

If that means I'm not the DM for you then that's not really my problem.

Thing is, you're not "allowing every race". You're, at most, allowing one race per player. At the absolute outside. More likely, you're allowing one or two races as everyone else sticks with the more popular choices. So, it's not like asking to play Race X means you have to add thirty races to your game. It means that for this campaign, could you please add this one race?

 

[Zardnaar]

Thing is, you're not "allowing every race". You're, at most, allowing one race per player. At the absolute outside. More likely, you're allowing one or two races as everyone else sticks with the more popular choices. So, it's not like asking to play Race X means you have to add thirty races to your game. It means that for this campaign, could you please add this one race?

And for GH the answer is no for Dragonborn ymmv.

I did give my players the choice between GH, FR and Midgard. They chose Midgard.

Just counted they get the choice if 26 extra races. How many DMs allow Gnolls? I do fits the setting.

Not gonna let Gnolls into other games next game will have different options. Think pirates is the next theme.

 

[Hussar]

What if there was no Dragonborn but Dragonkin?

Or no Dragonborn but Yuan Ti?

Atm I'm allowing around 30 races and half a dozen new subraces for the phb.

If I told a player upfront here's what's allowed and they asked for something else it's a red flag right there.

DM shortage, waiting list of players here. I'm offering this it's up to you if you want to play.

And for GH the answer is no for Dragonborn ymmv.

I did give my players the choice between GH, FR and Midgard. They chose Midgard.


Just counted they get the choice if 26 extra races. How many DMs allow Gnolls? I do fits the setting.

See, ok, couple of things here.

1. If you have TWENTY-SIX races allowed, adding one more can hardly be an issue. I'm sorry, but, that's just ridiculous. All the "I don't want Mos-Eisely Cantina" style arguments go right out the window. At that point, it just seems utterly baffling to me that the DM would have any issue with any race the player brought up, considering the shopping list of races that have already gotten the pass.

2. The "DM shortage, waiting list of players here" honestly sends up an even bigger red flag. The message, to me, is that "Well, it's my ball, so, we're going to play by my rules, you can like it or leave". Total DM power move. I'm a lot less interested in that sort of DM/Player power relationship anymore. Maybe it's because I don't play with strangers any more. I much prefer a more egalitarian approach.

I mean, heck, my current Greyhawk party consists of a gnome artificer, an orc bard, a firbolg druid and a human fighter. I obviously don't have a problem with players being creative. My last campaign, set in Waterdeep, had a talking skeleton, some 3rd party thing one of my players wanted to try out. A significant amount of time was spent during the campaign getting him declared an actual being, and not property, with rights as a citizen of Waterdeep. Tons of fun.

Considering the orc bard just freed orcish slaves from Scarlet brotherhood baddies, and is now organizing a sort of tribe, I'd say it worked out very, very well. The player is engaged and has created a situation I never would have envisioned when creating my campaign. Fantastic.

 

[Zardnaar]

See, ok, couple of things here.

1. If you have TWENTY-SIX races allowed, adding one more can hardly be an issue. I'm sorry, but, that's just ridiculous. All the "I don't want Mos-Eisely Cantina" style arguments go right out the window. At that point, it just seems utterly baffling to me that the DM would have any issue with any race the player brought up, considering the shopping list of races that have already gotten the pass.

2. The "DM shortage, waiting list of players here" honestly sends up an even bigger red flag. The message, to me, is that "Well, it's my ball, so, we're going to play by my rules, you can like it or leave". Total DM power move. I'm a lot less interested in that sort of DM/Player power relationship anymore. Maybe it's because I don't play with strangers any more. I much prefer a more egalitarian approach.

I mean, heck, my current Greyhawk party consists of a gnome artificer, an orc bard, a firbolg druid and a human fighter. I obviously don't have a problem with players being creative. My last campaign, set in Waterdeep, had a talking skeleton, some 3rd party thing one of my players wanted to try out.

Considering the orc bard just freed orcish slaves from Scarlet brotherhood baddies, and is now organizing a sort of tribe, I'd say it worked out very, very well. The player is engaged and has created a situation I never would have envisioned when creating my campaign. Fantastic.

Did you miss the party where I said I don't mind kitchen sink settings and I like variety?

The Midgard books I have added a lot to the setting so I don't need extra races from Volos Guide etc.

If I want anything goes there's Midgard, FR, Spelljammer, Eberron etc. If I want more restrictive there's Darksun or whatever.

Main point is DM needs to have fun as well and if that's running a restrictive game so be it. I was willing to run 5 games, let the players pick.

Greyhawk (gritty, ye olde D&D)
FR (kitchen sink)
Egypt themed (Midgard)
Viking themed (Midgard)
Undead themed (vampires)

It's what I was somewhat interested in running. They asked some questions about the differences.

FR would have been one of the APs, GH was Ghosts of Saltmarsh. GH was gonna include racial and alignment restrictions 1E style.

They chose Egypt so I narrowed the 26 races into a shortlist and the rest were check first. And yeah I play at gamestore so if someone comes along and want to play a Drow in not Egypt it's a bit annoying.

 

[Sadras]

But Dragonborn, Tieflings, Tabaxi and all these other races do. And that's what I'm talking about, player options that are presented in official books. There is a sense that since its official you should be allowed to play it. It is also true that a DM is within their rights to restrict these options, but like I said, doesn't mean a player won't be mildly disappointed their favorite subclass or spell or race got axed.

Mildly disappointed is fine, it is when posters begin making presumptions about the DM that doesn't allow all the options that is when people start having issues with such posters.

I wonder if the same pushback occurs when spells or entire schools are removed - resurrection comes to mind.

EDIT: Most of the time this is discussed at session 0, but ofcourse new players and PC deaths occur so the weird and wonderful is sometimes asked for. I as DM tend to stick to much of the setting lore - fitting in as much of it that makes reasonable sense to our table.

In our ToD campaign - I do not want to have someone playing a Saurial, Dragonborn or Half-Dragon as I have enough on my plate as DM, with limited playing time, and I do not want to explore that possible aspect of the storyline.

In our Mystara campaign set in Karameikos - I do not want to blow up my world in order to cater to non-Known World races, published or otherwise. We have two elves, one is a Calarrii and the other Vyalian. The humans are a Traladaran and a Thyatian. That way I can run an official Known World module and the information I will introduce can be tied to their peoples' history and mythology. If I had a tabaxi or a dragonborn it would require more work to tie all that in. I'd have to rethink the Duchy's past. No thanks.

There is a reason I use published settings and modules, less work for me as DM. When it comes to background though, I'm all ears. That is when the player gets to blow up creatively.

In our ToD campaign - we have a restitched up PC, Amon, with shattered memories of the previous soul that inhabitted that body (a now dead PC, Montano). He was remade by Kelemvor on a mission to stop a Kavah, a deranged cleric, from resurrecting the merciless dead god, A'tar.

All three were played by the same player.
Montano died. Kavah was retired. Amon is his current character.
The is entirely the player's creativity.