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

[Don Durito]

"The Dragonborn and the rest of the races [Tieflings, gnomes, half-orcs and half-elves] in this chapter are uncommon. They don't exist in every world of D&D, and even where they are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings and humans."
PHB page 33.

I'm grateful for that little passage.

It's basically warning players they may not be able to play these characters.

 

[Hussar]

So let's say you want to join a game. The DM gives you a list of accepted races that includes standard other than dragonborn and tiefling. They're up front about it, it's in the preview campaign documentation.

I ask because as a DM I want to have a campaign world that makes sense to me. I just don't see a place for dragonborn in my world. They've simply never existed in the history of the campaign world that I've run for a very long time across multiple editions.

Is that really a show stopper for you? If it otherwise sounds like an interesting campaign?

Honestly?

This sends up red flags to me. This suggests (and it may certainly be not true, only suggests) an inflexible DM who is opposed to new ideas and, frankly, if the DM is either incapable of adding or unwilling to add something as simple as a new race to a D&D game, what else is the DM going to be inflexible about? If I want to pursue some goal for my character, is the DM simply going to veto that because it doesn't make sense to him or her? If I want to play my character in this or that way, is the DM going to object because it doesn't make sense to him or her? Where does the line get drawn?

Now, this might totally be a non-issue. The DM might be perfectly fine. But, having been bitten by this sort of thing far too many times in the past, where overly controlling and overbearing DM's have tried to justify their actions by claiming setting purity, I would be very leery about joining the game unless I knew the DM from beforehand.

In a totally new DM? That I'd just met? Yeah, it would likely result in my thanking the DM politely but declining to play. Sorry, but, I've just been bitten too many times by this.

 

[Zardnaar]

You are deliberately being hyperbolic and that doesn't add to the conversation.

It's reasonable to open the Player's Handbook, get excited about playing a dragonborn, tiefling, or elf, and then be bummed when your overly cranky "old school" DM says "No" to maintain a false sense of setting purity. At least, in a "standard" D&D game.

If a player has a character concept of playing a "Wookie" or an "Andorian" in a pseudo-medieval game of D&D? Why not? Easily done and not really much stranger than a dragonborn or even an elf. Use the racial stats of an elf, but give them blue skin and antennae. Player wants to build a Roland-style gunslinger? Swap out the guns for crossbows or wands . . . . use the Goliath racial stats, but make him super hairy and communicates in growls that everybody seems to understand, boom "Wookie"!

Now, as DM, if you are trying to create a certain tone and feel and want the party to be mostly human and/or "demihuman" . . . . then doing so thoughtfully is fine. This can model certain styles of storytelling that you might want to emulate in your game. But doing so thoughtfully and in concert with the players during a session zero will go a long way to making a fun game for everyone without gaining the rep of a cranky DM who always says "No" due to "reasons" . . . and even then you can probably find ways for players to create Wookies, Andorians, and gunslingers without breaking the tone/theme you're going for . . .

What irritates me when I'm joining a new group is when I ask the DM about the tone/feel/theme of the campaign and for guidelines for character creation . . . . and they can't really explain it but have a list of restrictions with arbitrary justifications. No dragonborn in my campaign! Why? Um, well, because? Gygax didn't invent them?

Just as well there's only 4 core races in the phb.

 

[Zardnaar]

Honestly?

This sends up red flags to me. This suggests (and it may certainly be not true, only suggests) an inflexible DM who is opposed to new ideas and, frankly, if the DM is either incapable of adding or unwilling to add something as simple as a new race to a D&D game, what else is the DM going to be inflexible about? If I want to pursue some goal for my character, is the DM simply going to veto that because it doesn't make sense to him or her? If I want to play my character in this or that way, is the DM going to object because it doesn't make sense to him or her? Where does the line get drawn?

Now, this might totally be a non-issue. The DM might be perfectly fine. But, having been bitten by this sort of thing far too many times in the past, where overly controlling and overbearing DM's have tried to justify their actions by claiming setting purity, I would be very leery about joining the game unless I knew the DM from beforehand.

In a totally new DM? That I'd just met? Yeah, it would likely result in my thanking the DM politely but declining to play. Sorry, but, I've just been bitten too many times by this.

Well DM might want to run reptile worlds. Yuan Ti, Lizardmen, Dragonborn are fine.

A Drow campaign you would think would have limited options.

There's always those special players. Drow campaign "can I play a wood elf cleric of Lathendar"?

 

[Hussar]

Well DM might want to run reptile works. Yuan Ti, Luzardmen, Dragonborn are fine.
A Drow campaign you would think would have limited options.

There's always those special players. Drow campaign * can I play a wood elf cleric if Lathendar"?

Ah, now there's the other side of the coin. The deliberately "anti-campaign" character. And, fair enough. That's a player being an ass-hat. They should be beaten with a dice bag.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Honestly?

This sends up red flags to me. This suggests (and it may certainly be not true, only suggests) an inflexible DM who is opposed to new ideas and, frankly, if the DM is either incapable of adding or unwilling to add something as simple as a new race to a D&D game, what else is the DM going to be inflexible about?

I feel exactly the opposite. A player who wants to play a dragonborn in a game where my pitch didn't include dragonborn is a red flag.

I've found that more often than not, the player who convinces me to let them play a dragonborn follows that up by asking to play UA and homebrew, usually for the sole purpose of making their character more powerful than everything else.

"It's just a half-celestial half-dragon witch hunter, why are you opposed to something so simple?"

There are many reasons to restrict things in a game. For example: Theme setting, story setting, rule simplification (an excellent idea for new GM and/or players), portability (see Adventurer's League).

 

[Oofta]

I'd point out that this is most certainly NOT a kids these days sort of thing. This has been part of things since pretty much day 1.

I don't understand why DM's get so worried about it either, to be honest. It's not like the character's race has to play front and center in the campaign anyway. Heck, I'd actually LOVE it if players would play up the race of their characters a bit more. But, if your campaign is so fragile that adding a dragonborn to it will shatter your enjoyment of the game, I really have to wonder just who is being more entitled here. Do you actually base campaigns off of the race of the PC's? "Oh, you're all human, so I guess I'll run this adventure, but, if two of you aren't human, I can't run it?" Really?

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.

 

[Don Durito]

There needs to be some kind of way to make a basic human more immediately appealing to players.

Maybe if settings had specific background feats that could only be taken as a first level feat by humans. (And you could slot those in even if you weren't otherwise using feats).

Because it's always been a bit of an issue that every non-human culture comes with its own mechanical differentiation, but all human cultures blend into one.

And it's very hard for players to fully grasp those cultural backgrounds without some kind of mechanics unless they're already familiar with the setting. Character generation is their interface.

 

[generic]

There needs to be some kind of way to make a basic human more immediately appealing to players.

Maybe if settings had specific background feats that could only be taken as a first level feat by humans. (And you could slot those in even if you weren't otherwise using feats).

Because it's always been a bit of an issue that every non-human culture comes with its own mechanical differentiation, but all human cultures blend into one.

And it's very hard for players to fully grasp those cultural backgrounds without some kind of mechanics unless they're already familiar with the setting. Character generation is their interface.

I like Variant Humans, because they vary immensely, and allow you to have more freedom when creating your character. If you like, this can take the role of "cultural differences".

 

[Oofta]

I feel exactly the opposite. A player who wants to play a dragonborn in a game where my pitch didn't include dragonborn is a red flag.

I've found that more often than not, the player who convinces me to let them play a dragonborn follows that up by asking to play UA and homebrew, usually for the sole purpose of making their character more powerful than everything else.

"It's just a half-celestial half-dragon witch hunter, why are you opposed to something so simple?"

There are many reasons to restrict things in a game. For example: Theme setting, story setting, rule simplification (an excellent idea for new GM and/or players), portability (see Adventurer's League).

LOL. Reminds me of when I first got back into DMing after taking a break for a few years. For a while I had the attitude of allowing just about anything. One guy played a a seven foot tall albino pacifist elf with no weapons that didn't work out very well for some reason. Probably had something to do with the fact that he had no way of attacking. Or casting spells. Or otherwise contributing to the party. Fortunately he only lasted 1 session.

So when the next guy wanted to play a half vampire half dragon with a cape that was always billowing as if blown by a nonexistent wind I knew what the answer was. He could never really explain how he could be half dragon and half vampire or what his powers would be, but I'm sure he had some grand plans. Sometimes the best thing a DM can say is "no".