D&D General The Importance of Page 33

[clearstream]

I'd just say this: There is no obligation to include any particular race, but if a player in you game wants to play a particular race, it is a service to the player to be able to accommodate them. Players often have odd concepts for PCs, and if DMs are too restrictive in their setting, the PCs never get a chance to hit the table.

I think this is a sliding scale. In some groups, world creation is a shared job. In others, the DM is an author of a world that players explore. Both approaches have merit. When I am in the latter mode, I would not compromise the fiction by bringing in a race just because a player wanted it.

One might as well have complained that Le Guin failed to include ones favourite race - halflings, say - in EarthSea. A DM's sense for their world, including restrictions, can have value to players. Just perhaps not that of serving their every whim!

 

[shesheyan]

It all comes down to the pre-campaign discussion. I pitch a concept, the players tell me if they like it. If they do, then they abide by the limits of the concept. If there is too much grumbling I find a new concept based on the comments.

I will say I'm glad Game of Thrones was published and on tv. It is now much easier to convince players to play in a non-LOTR fantasy game. In my current game there are only humans. All other humanoid races (good and evil) simply don't exist, even in myths.

 

[pukunui]

This is why I find a session 0 vital. It’s important that everyone get on the same page right from the start. The DM can pitch their ideas, players can put in their ideas, and so on.

If the DM has a specific idea for a campaign, the players should buy in and respect the boundaries provided. If the DM is willing to make exceptions, that’s fine, as long as it’s all handled respectfully. If the player is doing it to be contrary or make trouble, that’s not cool.

This is also why I have come to always ask my players not to make characters before I have pitched the campaign. I don’t want anyone coming up with ideas that don’t fit the theme/setting/etc and being disappointed because I’ve said no.

 

[clearstream]

I came into this thread to find out why page 33 is important. I feel cheated as the OP didn’t mention the page in his opening post at all.

I can only presume it’s a page from a Mystara book that outlines what races are available in that setting. Is that correct?

PHB33

The OP makes clear the significance of that page.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think that the most important factor regarding this is to have interesting options available for the players.

I've played in any number of campaigns that limited the options from the PHB, but the good ones (IMO) added cool new options that were thematically geared to the campaign. When that was the case, players never sought to play something that was banned, as they were excited about trying out the new options.

However, if you have a player who dislikes the idea of playing a human (because they are a human in real life and want to be different in an FRPG) and all you offer is humans, you may have an issue. At the very least, you're not offering options that interest that participant, which IMO is less than ideal. That aspect of the campaign is not well suited to your 'audience' (I'm speaking metaphorically, as players obviously have more agency than that of an actual audience).

The wrong (IMO) implementation of additional options is when GMs design the new material to be substantially worse than the existing material. At best this becomes a false choice, at its worst a trap choice. IME it's better to aim for the new options to be on the high end of the power curve. This incentivizes the new options, which in turn root the players more deeply in the campaign world (since the new options are campaign specific).

Mystara, for example, has a wealth of unusual playable options that can replace what is banned.

In short, I don't think that there's anything wrong with limiting options per se. However, I think it is worthwhile examining your players' preferences and then considering whether there are ways to offer options that they will enjoy.

 

[pukunui]

PHB33

The OP makes clear the significance of that page.

Whoops. Yes, you’re right. My bad. Never mind then!

 

[Azuresun]

Really though, I think players should buy into the setting and look at those options before asking about playing something outside the setting.

I know if a player asked for something that didn't exist in a setting, my fear would be that they're not interested in the setting or the sort of game I said I'd be running, and that lack of investment / desire to be the super special unique guy is going to affect the game itself. I've probably been influenced in this by an former player who just could not play anything standard, always taking a concept designed to make him the centre of attention.

 

[Orius]

The DM should have the ultimate say as to what races and classes are available in the game.

Now, Mystara is an interesting case as it was the setting for classic D&D, and those rules had fewer options in core than AD&D, plus races were their own class. Core D&D didn't even have gnome PCs, though there were rules for typical gnomes in Top Ballista. But Mystara was also a kitchen sink, so like Greyhawk and the Realms, it's pretty flexible too. Half-elves and half-orcs aren't that much of a stretch. Drow weren't in the setting, because they were an AD&D thing, Mystara had the shadow elves instead.

Tieflings are a possibility, but they should be the traditional ones, not the homogenized 4e ones. Devils weren't traditionally used in Mystara, so the 4e tiefling backstory is at best an awkward fit. Mystara does however have the 7 original demon types in the Immortal rules, as well as Demogorgon and Orcus, so the old school Planescape tieflings wouldn't be a problem, but they should be rare. They'd probably face a lot of prejudice in a place like back country Karameikos, but on the Savage Coast, they could probably be assumed to be under the Red Curse. But that would lead to its own flavor of persecution, and if they hang around long enough, they'd probably fall under the curse as well....

Dragonborn don't really fit in the Known World or other explored parts of the world, but there's still lots of unexplored territory in Brun and Davania, and Skothar has never been officially described. So I'd limit any dragonborn to those areas. Any PCs would probably be additions to a party exploring the unknown reaches of the world like the adventures on the Princess Ark, and probably shouldn't be at the start of the campaign. Or maybe dragonborn are extinct on the surface and can only be found in the Hollow World.

That's just my take on it though. I do fully agree that a DM is well within his rights to disallow nonstandard races, and in 5e, that's anything not human, elf, dwarf, or halfling. Everything else in the PHB is there for backwards compatibility.

 

[clearstream]

In short, I don't think that there's anything wrong with limiting options per se. However, I think it is worthwhile examining your players' preferences and then considering whether there are ways to offer options that they will enjoy.

I'm going with - examine my own preferences and decide if it's something I'd enjoy DMing

Saying that, maybe the players are most likely to have fun when the DM is having fun.

 

[DammitVictor]

The setting is part of the pitch, and that includes what races and whatnot are allowed. If you dont like the pitch, don't play in the game. I don't think anyone should feel obliged to allow X just because a player has a concept they like. If that concept doesnt work for the setting, just save it for another time. The setting should demand at least as much respect as player desires.

The problem is, for a lot of people "D&D" is the only part of the pitch they hear or care about-- sometimes when the game being pitched isn't even D&D.