D&D 5E Should Published Settings Limit Classes and Races Allowed?

[Eltab]

Taking it to it’s extreme, do we allow Vulcans in a Star Wars game and Jedi on the Enterprise?

You can probably reverse-engineer both examples from things already in the universe(s) - but will have a different name on the result.

 

[Bacon Bits]

As someone who has tried to run Star Trek games where inevitably one player asks to play Jedi, or a Star Wars game where one player insists on being a scientist, yes.

Kitchen sink settings are great for introducing the game and providing a universal sandbox for all the material that the publishers produce, but they're not so great for building a unique world or telling different stories. Part of the reason novels, movies, plays, and so on have so many settings is because it aids in telling different stories. The same reason we exclude machine guns from fantasy settings, or magic from sci-fi settings, it's perfectly acceptable to exclude certain races, classes, or race-class combinations from a setting.

As far as the argument that excluding certain game mechanics will reduce sales, I don't entirely buy it. If we accept that it's true, that should mean that doing the opposite is true: publishing as much material as you possibly can will increase sales. Or, alternately, publish material that's so generic that it applies everywhere and has no setting linked to it at all. This is the method that Savage Worlds, GURPS, and even game systems like d20 Modern effectively take where your class is your role rather than your job. But... those game systems aren't as popular as D&D, and when D&D tried publishing content for everything it could think of -- in 2e, 3e, and 4e -- the market collapsed.

The problem with publishing a second setting is that there will be three types of customers: a) existing customers who are not interested, and b) existing customers who are interested, and c) new customers who are interested. The problem with publishing current setting material is that there's very few people in part (c). You need a new product or a new setting to get those new customers, because you're missing all the customers who like your game system but don't like your setting. If b + c is more than a + b, well, you know what you should be doing. The question is: is it?

Even then, since both your products use the same game system, you're always going to wonder if you're not drawing in new customers because they don't like the game system, or if they don't like the settings! In that sense it doesn't matter how many settings you've got. So, is it worth it to divide your customer base to potentially draw in new customers?

See, we're calling FR a kitchen sink setting, but it's really not. If it were a kitchen sink setting, then everything from any new setting's books would be in FR. Yet I don't think we'll see an Athasian continent appearing off the Sword Coast from the cataclysm of the week should they publish an adventure in Dark Sun (don't quote me, though, WotC's done that before). The reality is that kitchen sink settings aren't kitchen sink settings once a second setting is published!

Now, some players don't get that. They want Half-Giant Gladiators and Thri-Kreen Psionic Monks in Faerun, just like some players want lightsaber-wielding Jedi on the bridge of the Enterprise (even if we're talking about this Enterprise). Some players might object to the mixed mechanics, but some players find the game much more plastic than others do. They really want a true kitchen sink setting, or feel like they're missing out if all material isn't in their setting.

Alternately, others might rather that WotC just not publish material that conflicts with the existing "kitchen sink" setting, but this is more that some players only want material published for the setting they're using rather than any formal adherence to the notion of an all-encompassing setting. Now, in that sense it is unfortunate since the limited resources to produce materials means that the more other settings get the less the default setting gets.

All this leaves the publisher in an awkward situation: Do you publish more content in your existing setting to satisfy your existing customers? Or do you publish more content in your new setting to provide support for the customers that your new setting has attracted? If you don't do the former, you're abandoning your old customers; if you don't do the latter, you're abandoning your new customers. Even if you're talking about publishing a setting that's a strict subset of your kitchen sink setting, these same questions need to be answered.

The OGL helps the publisher in the sense that it puts all the risk for introducing a new setting on others, and you can still generate sales by selling the core books... but it also means you don't get as high of a profit since others reap the rewards.

TLDR; Publishing a new setting book might decrease sales from existing customers, but it might also increase sales overall due to new customers.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Yes. In Primeval Thule, arcane casters are extremely rare (there is an optional rule limiting a party to a maximum of one arcane caster).

Having a party of wizards is against the tropes of the setting. Conan never traveled with 5 wizards.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For the sake of marketability and flexibility, I would only like to see very small limitations. Dungeon Masters who want more severe limitations can always make that decision for their own campaign.

No, they can't. It's politically untenable. Any DM who advertised a game in a specific setting, but included a bunch of restrictions beyond the default for that setting, would find themself branded as unreasonably controlling before the game had even started. From a practical perspective, it's far easier to include things in a setting where they don't belong than to remove things from a setting where they should exist.

 

[Alexemplar]

I disagree with that because it's NOT easy to say "no". It's NOT easy to tell your friends they can't play what they want. It's confrontational and ugly and uncomfortable.

If the books say "by default, there are no elves and dwarves in Westeros" it empowers and emboldens the DM to say "no" to their players. They're just going with what the book says, by what the default options are in that setting. It shifts the blame.
And if that DM decides to open things up and let a player be an elf, they're being additive. They're loosening a restriction. That makes the DM the good guy.

In the reverse, if the book makes no such assumption of races and the DM bans those races, they're the ones taking things away from the players and not the book. It changes expectations and reactions to the prohibition.

It's always easier to let DMs add content and take away restrictions than to make the DMs take away content and add restrictions...
Heck, that's the whole reason there's only four races in the Basic Rules, with the rest being "other races" and effectively optional.

Not to mention that if the book explicitly defines itself and says what is/sin't default, it goes a long way in telling people whether or not they want to play in a game that uses that setting. People who want Gnomes are likely to get way more out of Eberron, which takes them seriously and gives them their own nation, badass secret police, a continent spanning mercantile house, and lots of unique mechanical options as opposed to trying to talk a DM into allowing them Dark Sun, where they have no real support.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Should Published Settings Limit Classes and Races Allowed?

Yes, published settings should be clear about what is endemic to the setting (or at least to the parts / continents detailed in the canon setting).

But, there should be nothing limiting anachronistic PCs. For example, being the only Dragonborn in a world where such creatures are extinct / never existed is a great premise for a character.

Of course, whether it is a good idea for a specific player to have a specific anachronistic PC in a specific campaign is a matter for the players / DM to sort out. The answer depends on the context, just like any other decision regarding party composition.

 

[DM Howard]

I think that campaign settings should stick to their guns, after all, you are buying a premade campaign setting which means that the campaign was written by someone who might have different ideas than you. Don't get hung up on what a particular book says, make changes where you see fit and make the world your own. You shouldn't need a paragraph to tell you that you are the Dungeon Master, and you certainly don't need to get hung up on a setting just because it says there are no elves. That's the creator's idea, but it doesn't mean you have to subscribe to it in YOUR game.

TL;DR: Take what you like, change what you don't. Set yourself free.

(if someone wants to play a bearded racist parody dwarf, I will tend to ban that, which is sadly, the most common type of dwarf).

Care to extrapolate on this? I don't think I have ever played with a racist dwarf character, an ethnocentric dwarf (or elf), but not a racist one.

 

[Sunseeker]

Care to extrapolate on this? I don't think I have ever played with a racist dwarf character, an ethnocentric dwarf (or elf), but not a racist one.

My experience has been that dwarves are often played as the most tropey, parody characters possible, being some of the most obnoxious fake accents paired with characters who are foul-mouthed drunks. And their players often act like they're super hot stuff for their ability to do what every other dwarf player I've been around has done.

It got to such a point that this was so common at tables, I resorted to banning dwarves (or as this thread would write it, simply not writing them in to the game world except as something totally different). It's one thing to be an elitist snob elf, that's not inherently offensive to any race or group of people, but obnoxious drunkard dwarf paired with saying "aye laddie" several hundred times is quite clearly an offensive parody of real existing people. Which after far too many people playing this character, I got tired of it.

And that's why my tables can't have dwarf things.

 

[Sunseeker]

I disagree with that because it's NOT easy to say "no". It's NOT easy to tell your friends they can't play what they want. It's confrontational and ugly and uncomfortable.

Which is why I will typically try to work with players.

EX: I intend to run Expedition to Castle Ravenloft this October (with some updates and adjustments based on newer and older material). Since players start off being transported to Barovia via the Mists, they get to be whatever race they want. The way I'm running it is extra deadly so they start off with a mercenary group (20 members in total, 15+5 party). These mercenary members are the player's backup characters, they may be of any race. Once those backups have been burned through, the party is limited to humans, elves and half-elves.

So that's my compromise.

If the books say "by default, there are no elves and dwarves in Westeros" it empowers and emboldens the DM to say "no" to their players. They're just going with what the book says, by what the default options are in that setting. It shifts the blame.
And if that DM decides to open things up and let a player be an elf, they're being additive. They're loosening a restriction. That makes the DM the good guy.

In the reverse, if the book makes no such assumption of races and the DM bans those races, they're the ones taking things away from the players and not the book. It changes expectations and reactions to the prohibition.

It's always easier to let DMs add content and take away restrictions than to make the DMs take away content and add restrictions...
Heck, that's the whole reason there's only four races in the Basic Rules, with the rest being "other races" and effectively optional.

I don't really think we're saying different things. I'm just saying that a book doesn't need to say "You're not allowed to play X, Y, Z." but can instead simply say "This setting was only written with X, Y, Z in mind."

It should be up to the DM to say "NO". Not the book. The book should be written the way the book was written and I don't think anything about that means the book has to take preventative measures against additions or alterations.

As for the OP question of should published settings limit races, I still say no. There are plenty of excuses as to why you're an elf in an all-human setting. Magical experiment gone wrong? Teleported from another dimension? Half-orc? Mutant. Tiefling? Demon-touched. Magic gone wrong. Dragonborn? Someone did the horizontal-worm with a dragon.

I mean, if you're going to tell me about a setting that has no magic, no dragons, no demons, only humans and no other dimensions I'm going to ask you: why's all the fun gone?

 

[Jester David]

Which is why I will typically try to work with players.

EX: I intend to run Expedition to Castle Ravenloft this October (with some updates and adjustments based on newer and older material). Since players start off being transported to Barovia via the Mists, they get to be whatever race they want. The way I'm running it is extra deadly so they start off with a mercenary group (20 members in total, 15+5 party). These mercenary members are the player's backup characters, they may be of any race. Once those backups have been burned through, the party is limited to humans, elves and half-elves.

So that's my compromise.

I like compromising with my players too.
But the catch is... both parties need to compromise. It can't always be the DM making allowances for the players.

I don't really think we're saying different things. I'm just saying that a book doesn't need to say "You're not allowed to play X, Y, Z." but can instead simply say "This setting was only written with X, Y, Z in mind."

It should be up to the DM to say "NO". Not the book. The book should be written the way the book was written and I don't think anything about that means the book has to take preventative measures against additions or alterations.

A book isn't going to say "you're not allowed to play X". That's not how they're written.
They will say things like "there are no orcs native to Krynn" or "all gnomes in Athas were killed centuries ago." They set the baseline and DMs can stick to the baseline or ignore as they choose.

As for the OP question of should published settings limit races, I still say no. There are plenty of excuses as to why you're an elf in an all-human setting. Magical experiment gone wrong? Teleported from another dimension? Half-orc? Mutant. Tiefling? Demon-touched. Magic gone wrong. Dragonborn? Someone did the horizontal-worm with a dragon.

But if the publisher doesn't say the races don't *normally* exist, how do you know you need to come up with a unique origin?

I mean, if you're going to tell me about a setting that has no magic, no dragons, no demons, only humans and no other dimensions I'm going to ask you: why's all the fun gone?

I'm playing a zombie apocalypse game right now, and that's a ton of fun. And there are lots of options for modern games. Like Tales From the Loop.
If that's the world the GM wants to play in, why not? That's the story they want to tell, and you'll have more fun working with than fighting.

You wouldn't expect to be allowed to play a Vulcan in Star Wars or a Ewok in Star Trek. Why should the players expect to be a half-orc in Dragonlance?