D&D 5E PC races that a DM has specifically excluded from their campaign and why

[jdrakeh]

Honestly, for me, it depends entirely on the setting. For official D&D settings or settings by third parties built to accommodate all of the official D&D PC races, I don't ban any races. If I'm playing in a third party setting that assumes specific races, I will limit certain options most of the time. For example, if I'm playing in Robert Howard's Hyborian Age, you'll all be playing humans (or variant humans) by default.

 

[Zardnaar]

One campaign has no real restrictions. Another campaign has certain restrictions based on our DM's homebrew. I don't recall them all but I know that Gnomes are extinct, so none of them.

I'm getting ready to run a campaign using Midgard from Kobold Press. I'm planning on presenting a limited list of races for that campaign, mainly for a thematic purpose. There is a suggestion in that book to limit races depending on Geogrphical area and that's basically what I'm doing, to ensure a consistent theme. It's an Italian themed campaign featuring Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves, Minotaurs & Tieflings. (Elves have retreated, gnomes and halflings, etc are not common in that region.) There might be one or two other races I'd have to check my notes.

That's how I use Midgard.

Different areas spotlight different races. I might let one person run a Traveller but I don't want a whole party of them.

The PCs get to pick what areas (or none) interest them.

 

[Grantypants]

Chaotic Good Human Ranger who has pledged his twin scimitars in opposition to the tyranny of his evil cousins?

Lol, only if he's extra angsty about it the whole time.

EDIT: Oh, hey, major +1 for all the people who treat worldbuilding as part of character building in Session 0.0-0.5. Generally, there's about seven unique lineages in the PHB, and I think a D&D world should have about twice that-- including "standard opposition"-- but there's no reason they have to be the same 7-14 in every single game. Let players whitelist and blacklist things on their own, see where it goes.

Hard Agree. Once everyone's chosen their races and classes, I always like to go around the table and have all the players establish something that explicitly does not exist on this particular world. Only rule is that it can't be something that someone else has already mentioned as part of their character or the basic premise. Then I have everyone add something new to the lore that does exist. Collaborative worldbuilding is the best.

 

[renbot]

I usually exclude some races from the world but only after the players have chosen their PC races. I don't see a reason to limit character choices but I also don't see the need for dozens and dozens of sentient humanoids with their own civilizations. After the players have decided on their races I say "okay nobody wants to play X,Y or Z? Then they don't exist in this world."

 

[The Green Hermit]

I typically exclude standard Dwarves from any setting that I create, because the stereotypical way 98% of all players play them is really goddamn annoying. (And it occurs to me that I don't use alignments for the exact same reason.)

I don't use alignments, because we've figured out that the players at my table are incapable of following them. Lol!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I've done a world that was Humans only because it was a 'mundane world' at the beginning. As things got weirder and 'the veil' was torn between realities, I was going to let them change races gradually as they were affected by the bleeding energies of the Wyld.

I never go that far enough in the campaign, though.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Any time I try to limit any player choice, whatever I'm limiting will be the very first thing the players ask for. Oh, Mr. DM, you want to run a low magic campaign with no core casters? Can I be the only warlock/wizard/sorcerer? (first three character pitches I received after stating I wanted a low magic game). Oh, Mr. DM, you want to run a Greyhawk game and have provided all sorts of background for the region? Yeah, I'm going to play an orc, a firbolg, a gnome, and two humans. Oh, Mr. DM, you want to run a Waterdeep Dragon Heist game? Ok, I'm going to play a sentient skeleton and a warforged.... sigh.

Step 1: Tell your players that you are running a gonzo campaign. They can be any race they want except humans, elves and dwarves. Explain that you feel that those races are overplayed and that you don’t think there are any new or interesting concepts for them.

Step 2: Wait for your players to show up with 3 humans, a dwarf and an elf.

Step3: Profit!!

 

[Hussar]

Step 1: Tell your players that you are running a gonzo campaign. They can be any race they want except humans, elves and dwarves. Explain that you feel that those races are overplayed and that you don’t think there are any new or interesting concepts for them.

Step 2: Wait for your players to show up with 3 humans, a dwarf and an elf.

Step3: Profit!!

That's been the standard joke. Next time I want to run Thule, I'm going to insist that everyone plays a full caster and they're not allowed to play humans. Should pretty much get what I want.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I tend to be pretty permissive with races. I will provide a list of races that are common to the area, and others that are uncommon. All other races are rare.

I do explain to my players that if they choose to play a rare race, they will probably have to be from elsewhere, and that because of this, their characters may be less “embedded” in the setting and therefore have fewer personalized campaign hooks.

I have on occasion restricted races that I believe are too strong mechanically.

 

[CleverNickName]

I usually exclude some races from the world but only after the players have chosen their PC races. I don't see a reason to limit character choices but I also don't see the need for dozens and dozens of sentient humanoids with their own civilizations. After the players have decided on their races I say "okay nobody wants to play X,Y or Z? Then they don't exist in this world."

This is the way to go. Everyone gets what they want, no conflict, no frustration.