D&D 5E How do you decide which Races to disallow (and/or Classes)?

[Mallus]

In the more recent homebrew settings I worked, we tried to build justifications/rationalizations for any PC race into the settings.

Our 3e world had humans, Warforged (eventually), and 4 customs races (whose mechanics mirrored the standard PHB elf/halfling/dwarf/half-orc). But the setting was also littered with ancient magic portals to other realms so there was a ready in-setting reason for the inclusion of any race a player wanted, so long as they were okay with being a 'stranger in a strange land'.

Our 4e world was set in a port on the Astral Sea. It used the standard races, albeit with much of the standard fiction altered, but anyone & anything could 'wash up on shore/disembark from a mysterious ship' as a playable race.

 

[Skyscraper]

I think that DMs should prepare a general campaign draft for proposal to their players: for example, I propose a low-magic, gritty campaign about taking care of local problems that arise when a meteor lands near a small village. (Untold: animals and insects are deformed into aberrations.) The available classes are all from the Player's Handbook except Clerics and Paladins because there are no gods in this game world. The available races are human, elves and half-elves only - dwarves and halflings do not exist, orcs and humans cannot breed, tieflings and dragonborn exist as non-player character races only and hold special positions in the game world, etc... Monsters are very rare in this game world, and seeing, say, a troll is something that happens once in the lifetime of most village folk.

In the present campaign I'm running, I've prepared a player's campaign book, where (1) character creation and (2) available classes and races are explained. There are only humans, although those are culturally split into sub-races that mechanically work like the races of the Player's Handbook. There are several race/class restrictions. For example, all barbarians are a viking-type race; and the native-american-type race has no wizard (only sorcerers), no paladin or fighter or barbarian (only rangers), no cleric (only druids).

I'm trying to tell a story. I'm not going to impose anything. I propose. But my proposals are not conservative.

 

[weldon]

I love creating my own campaign worlds, but I don't really care for DMs that think their story is more important than the player's story. I say let them all in and then find ways to make it fit. It's almost more fun to figure out together how to solve the puzzle.

 

[Skyscraper]

I love creating my own campaign worlds, but I don't really care for DMs that think their story is more important than the player's story. I say let them all in and then find ways to make it fit. It's almost more fun to figure out together how to solve the puzzle.

Why then propose an adventure or campaign setting? Let the group decide what the story and gameworld environment are and let them choose who the villain is! Oh and of course, magic shops will abound and each includes all magic items from the DMG!

Ok i'll quit the sarcasm

In the end its up to the DM to propose a.game world and an adventure. This comes with a.bunch of limitations inlcuding races and classes. If as DM you choose to align these.limitations with the content of all published material from WOTC that's fine. I just see no reason to do so.

 

[weldon]

Why then propose an adventure or campaign setting? Let the group decide what the story and gameworld environment are and let them choose who the villain is! Oh and of course, magic shops will abound and each includes all magic items from the DMG!

I'm going to try and reply carefully here because it feels like you reacted to my comments personally and decided to mock me with sarcasm perhaps because you were offended in some way. I get it because my comment came right after yours, but that's just coincidence. I was just adding my opinion to the thread, not trying to argue with anything you said specifically. With that out of the way…

Working with the group to decide on the story and the villain is kinda the main point of sandbox adventures, which I like even if I'm still learning how to do them well. I enjoy the collaborative storytelling of RPGs and I try to give room to the players to add to the story and even change parts of it. I'm all for limitations (they make better stories), but in the form of consequences for choices. I don't like blanket bans on choices because to me it feels like saying "No" in improv when I feel like I should be saying, "Yes, and…"

 

[Skyscraper]

I'm going to try and reply carefully here because it feels like you reacted to my comments personally and decided to mock me with sarcasm perhaps because you were offended in some way. I get it because my comment came right after yours, but that's just coincidence. I was just adding my opinion to the thread, not trying to argue with anything you said specifically. With that out of the way…

Working with the group to decide on the story and the villain is kinda the main point of sandbox adventures, which I like even if I'm still learning how to do them well. I enjoy the collaborative storytelling of RPGs and I try to give room to the players to add to the story and even change parts of it. I'm all for limitations (they make better stories), but in the form of consequences for choices. I don't like blanket bans on choices because to me it feels like saying "No" in improv when I feel like I should be saying, "Yes, and…"

No offense taken, although yes I did (erroneously) conclude that you were adressing my - and other's - point of view on limiting player access to certain content. My sarcasm was meant to be somewhat humorous, to get my point through. I hope that I, in turn, did not offend.

This said, you ideas seem really cool and I'm all up for a DM that proposes something - anything - with passion and with an idea to getting some fun game time with friends. It might be an open-ended sandbox game all about cooperative storytelling like you propose, or a low-magic Game of Thrones D&D offshoot like I played as a player 2 years ago that was all about plot and story, or a game of Call of Cthulhu like i'm playing presently with mandatory pregenerated characters that are each part of the storyline (i.e. no player choice whatsoever at the outset, the DM imposed a character to each of us), or a game of D&D with few or all classes and races allowed. To me, the DM is the first to bring something to the table, and then the gaming and storytelling begins assuming the players accept to jump in. In our group, we switch from one style of game to the other, and personally, I like the diversity.

I'm also an actor in my free time, and this is reminiscent for me of acting: sometimes we do improvisations (no or little structure, i.e. freeform, like a sandbox); and sometimes we create a play from scratch, either through cooperative writing or through the director writing the play (middleground); or sometimes we use a preset play that was written by an author unrelated to our group and the director assigns roles to each of us (no or little actor choice). Each is cool, and I'm all up for any of the above.

 

[weldon]

No offense taken, although yes I did (erroneously) conclude that you were adressing my - and other's - point of view on limiting player access to certain content.

I suppose I was, but only indirectly. I don't care for the attitude of "my way or the highway" from the DM that sometimes crops up in these types of threads (not accusing you specifically). I think it's fine to make choices or create limitations, but I also think the DM should always leave room for the player's choices to have their part in the story (even if they come with negative consequences).

My sarcasm was meant to be somewhat humorous, to get my point through. I hope that I, in turn, did not offend.

No worries. It was humorous, but I wanted to address (and diffuse) the tension that I felt coming through.

 

[Skyscraper]

I don't care for the attitude of "my way or the highway" from the DM that sometimes crops up in these types of threads.

I hear you bud. I think it's a weird thing to say, really. Like, "I won't listen to you, and what I decide is the only thing that stands". In what spheres in life is one allowed to impose his will in this way?

So yes, I agree, this inflexible approach is not what I hope for from a DM that I would play with, nor is it my approach. We discuss our games and get to know what we wish for or like; and consequently, when we come up with a proposal for the group, it will be put on the table to see how everyone reacts, but it's usually already the result of plenty of discussion on our group's preferences.

Peace,

Sky

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think it's interesting how people have such strong views about what parameters a DM should or should not set in D&D.

I see D&D as similar to many other things (such as sports, or employment). You can choose within the parameters given, but you usually can't change the parameters. I'm not sure why it is difficult for some to accept that for many D&D groups, the parameters of a campaign are set before you are invited. Parameters include what options are available, what house rules are present, etc.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the DM coming to the table with a blank slate and saying, "hey guys, what do we want to do?" I can enjoy that. But there also shouldn't be anything wrong with the DM saying the D&D equivalent of "we're playing basketball--so there won't be any bases, kicking the ball, or tackling." If you don't want to play that game you simply politely decline, or even ask the DM if he would be willing to run a different game some time. But it just isn't appropriate IMO in that type of situation to try to tell the DM that you want to play in the game you were invited to, but you want to adjust the parameters of it to better suit you.

 

[Mercule]

I suppose I was, but only indirectly. I don't care for the attitude of "my way or the highway" from the DM that sometimes crops up in these types of threads (not accusing you specifically). I think it's fine to make choices or create limitations, but I also think the DM should always leave room for the player's choices to have their part in the story (even if they come with negative consequences).

I refer to myself, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as a "DM as God" guy, so I'll bite.

I don't think the GM should ever go on a power trip. I do think Gygax was wise to refer to the DM as "referee", though. I forget the source, but there's a quote something like, "A democracy can only survive until the citizenry discovers it can vote itself gifts from the public coffers." RPGs have a similar dynamic, and the GM being able to invoke ultimate authority is the safety for that. GMs should also be aware of the eventual fate of most brutish despots.

That aside, the GM has to monitor a significant number of moving parts. The GM also puts in substantively more creative energy than any player (sometimes more than all the players), just to keep things moving along. If the group is using exclusively a published setting and a module written for that setting, there isn't nearly as much difference in creativity, but the juggling act still exists. IME, the GM has to know the PCs' abilities almost as well as each of the players (and often knows them better) as well as the DMG rules and the module. That can easily lead to burnout. If the GM isn't able to put the brakes on things that, for whatever reason, markedly more of a chore (whether due to effort or "feel"), that burnout is almost guaranteed.

As I've said, before, it's appropriate for the GM to give the player a chance to "sell" his idea. I don't think the GM has "failed" the group in any way, though, if he refuses to run Shadowrun instead of D&D. Likewise, I don't feel bad for disallowing things that have been a problem for me in the past or that doesn't seem like it fits with what the other players are doing, etc. My job is to make sure everyone (myself included)
has enough fun to make the activity worthwhile, not to maximize the enjoyment for a single player (myself included) at the expense of others. Quite honestly, if I have a player who only enjoys playing tinker gnomes (a personal dislike of mine), odds are we're going to have plenty of other issues at the table. Might as well get it out of the way up front and not waste anyone's time.