Implementing strict race selection.

[the_cowley]

So i toy back and forth with different homebrew settings, but one thing I've always been a little nervous about implementing is stricter choices on race, and to a lesser extent class choice as well. With out going into deep discussion of my current workings (still trying to pull that stuff out from my head and onto paper.) But has anyone here had any luck or advice on how to implement stricter choose selection then just saying things like "books a,b, and c" are all legal.

 

[Trogdor1992]

Yes simply tell players that certain races or classes do not exist in your setting, it's your setting so you can freely choose exactly what does and does not exist

 

[bedir than]

Present the options to your players, explain why it makes sense in your world. Ask them if they want to play.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Rather than word it what is NOT available, provide them with a 'Player's Guide' on what IS available.

If you show them you have put a lot of thought into the setting and where each race and class fits in then that may inspire them to choose from what you have, rather than look for what is not there.

I have used this approach a lot, as I do all homebrew worlds based upon the extensive Realms Creation docs I put together. You usually end up with a lot of options, several of them great combos of race and culture.

I have even developed worlds where the different races had different approaches to magic (hence all the different classes for magic). Not that those classes were restricted ONLY to their aligned magic, as it had developed long ago and other races had learnt etc.

Sorry, rambling, but basically, you setting really should define what to include and if you make it sound great I don't think you will have players going, "What? No teiflings? Arrrggg". And if you do have a player that REALLY wants something not from your setting, perhaps accommodate. ie: They are from a distant land, or plane altogether. (Used this in a world with no gnomes once. Used the 4E idea they were from the Feywild, so in ported a gnome).

But remember, it is often what a setting does NOT have that really gives it its flavour and uniqueness.

 

[psimon85]

So i toy back and forth with different homebrew settings, but one thing I've always been a little nervous about implementing is stricter choices on race, and to a lesser extent class choice as well. With out going into deep discussion of my current workings (still trying to pull that stuff out from my head and onto paper.) But has anyone here had any luck or advice on how to implement stricter choose selection then just saying things like "books a,b, and c" are all legal.

It's not so bad or difficult to do it without being mean or whatever it is that worries you.

If you don't want something in your campaign then think of a valid reason as to why it wouldn't make sense.
Focus on what will be available in the campaign for the players.

For instance in the campaign I am currently playing in, our DM banned monks and barbarians, along with dragonborn and tieflings. The reason for this is that they do not fit with the campaign and the setting, barbarians are just not a thing as they were wiped out a while back in the previous campaign. Monks have never been allowed in this DM'S campaigns as she doesn't like the rules for them which is fine. Dragonborn and tieflings also got eradicated in various events so we knew they would be off the table.

It's very much a setting hook that you can use to explain why certain things are or are not in the campaign.

 

[Li Shenron]

Are you doing it for setting reasons or campaign reasons?

setting reasons = "There are no elves in this world"
campaign reasons = "There are no elf PCs in the group"

It's dead easy to just say to your players that in the current setting or campaign, the PCs have to be members of a specific list of races or classes. I second the opinion that this should rather be presented as "what you can be" rather than "what you cannot be".

As for whether it is right or wrong, I think every DM's decision about what belongs to her game is always right, but try to communicate some positivity rather than negativity to your players. Instead of "No X and Y and Z because they are broken, boring and we hates them", try to present it for example as "I would like to see only races XYZ and classes ABCD in this campaign, because the story arc will fit them very well, because there will be stuff in the fantasy world that will make these races/classes shine, and because I just haven't seen much X or A and B in play for a long time!".

And remember that a good "DM's trick" to improve players' acceptance of restrictions, is to remind them that this is just one campaign, and if it doesn't have something you'd like to play, the next campaign will have it! Players usually don't reject this idea, because they would have to admit that they are not interested in playing with the group for long, which (if true) is actually a good reason not to twist the campaign to suit their preferences.

 

[the_cowley]

Are you doing it for setting reasons or campaign reasons?

setting reasons = "There are no elves in this world"
campaign reasons = "There are no elf PCs in the group"

It's dead easy to just say to your players that in the current setting or campaign, the PCs have to be members of a specific list of races or classes. I second the opinion that this should rather be presented as "what you can be" rather than "what you cannot be".

As for whether it is right or wrong, I think every DM's decision about what belongs to her game is always right, but try to communicate some positivity rather than negativity to your players. Instead of "No X and Y and Z because they are broken, boring and we hates them", try to present it for example as "I would like to see only races XYZ and classes ABCD in this campaign, because the story arc will fit them very well, because there will be stuff in the fantasy world that will make these races/classes shine, and because I just haven't seen much X or A and B in play for a long time!".

And remember that a good "DM's trick" to improve players' acceptance of restrictions, is to remind them that this is just one campaign, and if it doesn't have something you'd like to play, the next campaign will have it! Players usually don't reject this idea, because they would have to admit that they are not interested in playing with the group for long, which (if true) is actually a good reason not to twist the campaign to suit their preferences.

Defiantly setting reasons. building my world up and where the sentient races live, I just sorta started running out of room. between the many monsterous races that exist in the MM, and the "civilized" races, I just couldn't find a place for everything. I ended up cutting things that either where not very interesting to me, or had a very similar feel to me.

Example, though you can choose to be halfing or gnome player race, in the setting they are all one short folk race.

 

[delericho]

Present the options to your players, explain why it makes sense in your world. Ask them if they want to play.

Yep. It's as simple, and as difficult, as this.

 

[Weathercock]

I once DM'd with a homebrew setting where humans were the only races available, and the magic classes that were there had to be unlocked through story events (you could either multiclass into them, or start as a civilian template and replace any gained levels with the appropriate caster levels once you unlocked that magical class). Once players got involved in things, they took it all pretty well, even those stuck to civilian classes. We never managed to get too far into things, since people ended up moving away and a few personal conflicts ended up popping up, but for what we did get through, I felt mostly good about it. The key is keeping your players engaged, as it is with any setting. So long as you give your players a reason to be engaged with their characters, any token elements, like race, or even class in some cases, tend to be fleeting in their novelty.

 

[Artifact]

I've played a few homebrew settings where some races were unavailable. As DM, what works best for me is to set out, from the start, which races and classes are available (and if unavailable, why).

In our 3e campaigns (a 'knights in shining armor' setting), the players got a list like this:

Common Races: Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Half-orcs, Muls.

Unavailable Races: Half-elves, Halflings

'Half-elves' are (more accurately) full humans or elves with a 'dual-heritage' backround. They are also PC only (no NPC half-elves). In this setting, Elves were best described by a line taken from the very first line of description of elves in the 3e PHB: "Elves mingle freely in human lands, always welcome yet never at home there." No half-elves (hopefully) reinforced this idea. Muls replace half-elves (in theory).

Gnomes were an uncommon race (less widespread than the others). Other uncommon races included goliaths, raptorians, and warforged. Illumians were unavailable due to the 'constructed' nature of their magical language (which was at odds with the nature of arcane magic in the setting)

Slightly 'narrowing' the list of available races was (hopefully) a way to subtly increase the prominence of humans in the setting.

= = =

Core Classes: Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer.

Bards, Paladins, and Rangers were prestige classes (as seen in 3e Unearthed Arcana).

There were no wizards. In this setting, arcane magic was sorta like the Force (from Star Wars); spellcasters learned to 'sense and control' arcane energy, rather than 'study and learn' (Intellect had no effect on magic, only Charisma).

There were no monks (although I would've been open to the idea of a character originating from somewhere far away). This was a land of mounted knights and crusading clerics but it wasn't the only realm out there.

There was also a list of 'expanded classes': Hexblades, Knights, Scouts, Spirit Shamans, Swashbucklers, and Warlocks. Available if anyone was interested.

= = =

Our 4e homebrew did away with 'traditional' fantasy races altogether. No dwarves, elves, half-elves, half-orcs, or halflings.

In this campaign, we made a definite nod to the races of 4e. We had humans (o' course), changelings, dray (a.k.a. dragonborn), devas, genasi, shifters, tieflings, minotuars, and wilden.

Devas figured prominently in the lore of this setting; a deva emperor ruled a 'Union' of worlds (actually mini-settings), traveled to via a series of magical Runegates. A fantasy equivalent (of sorts) of the TV show SG-1.

All classes were available (although we weren't using psionics).

= = =

As a sorta counterpoint to those games, we later played a campaign using D&D Essentials exclusively.

We had Humans, Dwarves, Eladrin, Elves, and Halflings. Drow, Half-elves, and Half-orcs, (and later) Hobgoblins were uncommon races (less widespread than the others).

The games were a nod to 'old-school' D&D. Dragonborn, tieflings, and warlocks were outta place.

= = =

I think having a clear idea of what these campaigns were gonna be about helped. Everyone knew what was available and why. The settings could still be distinctive (no need for the 'whole kitchen sink') and still have plenty of choices.

It also seemed to help us to have a list of books on the table (as it were). In our later 4e campaign for instance, we knew that we would be using D&D Essential rules exclusively.