I'm setting up a new game, and in the process of creating a sort of Player's Guide on character creation I ran into a sort of mental tongue twister, where I'm not sure I'm properly conveying my intent with regards to limiting the groups choice in certain Races and Classes. I wanted to know if anyone could lend their thoughts on how to best present these restrictions. What I have below is a sort of example on my current attempt. If people could chime in with their own thoughts on Campaign or Adventure specific limitations to character generation, as well as how to diplomatically present those restrictions, I'd very much appreciate it.
The campaign world is one of my own creation but it only serves as a very temporary stepping off point, into the main adventure which will be 'CurseofStrahd.' While I have no issue with these options mechanically, and feel that they certainly fit many other Campaign Settings and Worlds, they present an issue for the thematic aesthetic of this game. Also, the location players will be spending the majority of their time in is a very closed off and insular region, where the vast majority of the populace is human. To quote directly from the adventure, “Although they know that dwarves, elves, halflings and other civilized races exist, few living Barovians have seen such creatures, let alone interacted with them. … Barovians thus react to nonhuman characters the same way most humans in the real world would react to elf, dwarf, or half-orc adventurers suddenly walking the streets. Most such outsiders are scorned, feared, or shunned.” Keep in mind, that’s the reaction to races like Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc. To allow for greater opportunities to role play and interact, I will not be allowing the following Races (and while other races may be allowed, a smart bit of role playing may be called for to avoid being targeted by the narrow minded populace).
At which point I present the disallowed Races as the following: Aarokocra, Bugbears, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Lizardfolk, Tabaxi, Tritons, Tortle, Changelings, Warforged, Centaurs, Loxodon, Minotaurs, Simic Hybrid, Vedalken, Verdan, Locathah, and Grung.
Somewhat similarly, I'm not allowing the Artificer at this time, as my world is not Eberron. There have been advances with regards to both engineering, the sciences, arcane science and such, but for players this option will not be currently present.
I was actually tempted to allow artificers, as there are people in the setting who have stunts that are a bit mad science like:
the Abbot playing Frankenstein, a bunch of animated objects, Blinsky and Fritz von Weerg, Ezmerelda's wagon, Rictavio deciding that plate armored saber tooth tigers make sense
I currently haven't started it and I don't have Eberron so I haven't allowed it, but...
In any case, I don't see any need to give a reason beyond "That's the feel I want for the setting". If necessary, point out that the only people who get into Ravenloft are the people the Mists want there. I was thinking of offering a bribe for playing humans, such as assigning point costs to different races (using point build).
Just warn players up-front and, if they are reasonable, they should be able to deal with it.
Every once in a while you will run into a person who wants to play an Orc but does NOT want to be treated negatively by the populace. Not sure what to do with people like that, but a firm "no" might be all you have at that point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Phew, thanks to you both. I was worried that players in this current edition of D&D were a little opposed to anything less than "give me everythign!", so I'm glad to hear other DM's are okay with putting restrictions into place on what they will or will not allow.
Phew, thanks to you both. I was worried that players in this current edition of D&D were a little opposed to anything less than "give me everythign!", so I'm glad to hear other DM's are okay with putting restrictions into place on what they will or will not allow.
Plenty are. But it doesn't matter what "most" current D&D players want -- only what your players at the table want. There are some players who, if you said nothing, would make something very typical like a dwarf or a human and never even consider a goblin or bugbear PC. But if you dare tell them no bugbears allowed, they will immediately want to make one and fight tooth and nail for you to allow it. (And then usually that same player will wildly object when you have the townsfolk react in fear, dislike, prejudice, etc., against that character.) This is a personality type I have never understood -- but I have observed the phenomenon. So you will need to know if you have someone like that in your party.
My fix for this used to be to get that player talking about character concepts early, and see if I could get him excited about something. Once he gets all into the idea of his Dwarven Ranger, he might not want to drop it for that Bugbear concept even after you ban them. But you just never know with people like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Usually first campaign with a new group, I’ll let them do pretty much anything. I figure at that point we are all learning about each other’s play styles. I can learn about them by just letting them rip, and they can build trust that I’m going to be fair with the rules and have a good plan for an interesting campaign. Subsequent campaigns then, they trust me enough that if I ban something I have a good reason, and I know that bob will lose his mind if he can’t be an elf, so I can try and accommodate that.
It has been a very rare campaign for anyone to play a full race which is not in the PHB. Variants of Tiefling, Half-Elf, etc. are usually allowed. Monstrous Characters almost always require DM approval. Of course the very rare, includes running an anti-hero campaign where the PHB races were the "bad guys".
As long as the table agrees on what the DM is presenting and why, and if there is any desired exceptions, it is discussed. Following campaign world guidelines tends to be a pretty safe and easily justifiable way of restrictions.
In my experience if the DM has done some solid world-building and has presented the players with an assortment of playable races, even if some are not allowed, players are usually happy to live with the restrictions because they want to play in a well-developed game world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with what everyone is saying, but I would suggest a slightly different approach. I tweaked your opening:
The campaign world is one of my own creation but it only serves as a very temporary stepping off point, into the main adventure which will be 'Curse of Strahd.' I'm want to set a certain thematic aesthetic for this game. You will be spending the majority of your time in is a very closed off and insular region, where the vast majority of the populace is human. To quote directly from the adventure, “Although they know that dwarves, elves, halflings and other civilized races exist, few living Barovians have seen such creatures, let alone interacted with them. … Barovians thus react to nonhuman characters the same way most humans in the real world would react to elf, dwarf, or half-orc adventurers suddenly walking the streets. Most such outsiders are scorned, feared, or shunned.” Keep in mind, that’s the reaction to races like Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc. With that being said, we will be using all the races and classes from the Player's Handbook, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, (insert other books here), and the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
Did you notice what I did there? I'm not taking away classes and races, I'm saying "look at everything you get to use!" It may be a more positive way to approach as opposed to, "look what I'm taking away."
I hope this helps and you have an excellent campaign.
Did you notice what I did there? I'm not taking away classes and races, I'm saying "look at everything you get to use!" It may be a more positive way to approach as opposed to, "look what I'm taking away."
That sort of wording just makes people think maybe they can use other books. It may be faster to say 'Only races from these sources', but in the end you have to tell people which things are unavailable, as well as which things are available.
With that being said, we will be using all the races and classes from the Player's Handbook, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, (insert other books here), and the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
That sort of wording just makes people think maybe they can use other books.
I don't know how the wording makes it sound like other books are included... In my case, I'm the only one in my group who owns the books, so limiting the content with the Content Manager is pretty quick and easy...
Did you notice what I did there? I'm not taking away classes and races, I'm saying "look at everything you get to use!" It may be a more positive way to approach as opposed to, "look what I'm taking away."
I agree that this is a good approach. In my new campaign, I made a list of many races (3 human subraces, 2 Dwarven, 2 Elven, 2 Gnome, 2 Halfling, Half-Elves, Aarakocra, Centaurs) and for each one said where they came from and what most people in the starting area would think of members of each race. I worded it as, "You might be this, and you would have this relationship to the Empire," for each race. This list was so long that it was supposed to be one sheet but it ran a little long. I did not say "You can't be a goblin," but just didn't include things like goblins, bugbears, etc., on the list.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In my homebrew, I simply give a list of what races can be playable. My current world has 25 race selections which are playable, except not really. There are five human "races" (humans in this world are the result of interbreeding between the other races), and five dragonborn "races" (cause there are only five types of dragons), no "outsider races" nor half races per se. All races have been tweaked a bit to make sure there are no "clear winners", with a universal change of a floating +1 for all races instead of the set +1. Races are grouped by some common themes.
I prove a 32 page document/booklet which has a brief history, current world status, starting location information, and a one page side write up for each of the races, along with any tweaks to the classes, and then a simple list of feats, spells, and equipment with only descriptions on any which have changed.
6 pages doesn't bind well.. 32 pages includes front and back cover (blank page inside) 25 pages of race info, and 5 pages of stuff. Map is always separate, and usually first presented as a poster in the first session. Their starting point is determined on Q&A based upon character concepts, choices, backstory, etc. The more detailed "what they know" for the start of the campaign tends to be specific for each character, which flushes out the starting point geography, problems, and NPC's. (So the Barbarian/Druid/Ranger will "know" a different set of people and problems then the Cleric/Paladin and so on. Fighters/Sorcerors/Warlocks/Bards are much more "Grab bag" of what they know more defined by backstory than "profession")
All my docs are electronic so binding doesn't matter.
Also I want to be clear. I have way more than 6 pages of material written. I just didn't feel like it was a good idea to give more than 6 pages out before the campaign started. And even there it was not a '6 page document' but 6 individual "one sheets" that briefly summarized things like the culture, laws, and so forth. For the details, I have a World Anvil website that they can use to plumb the depths if they want. I know one guy has... not sure about the rest. That is up to them and their motivation/interest/time available.
In one game I'm in, the DM simply said, "I'm only allowing Human, Aasimar and Tiefling races for the world I'm working on," and the group said "Alright, sounds good."
In one of the Avernus groups I'm running I said, "You're going to be in Baldur's Gate," and the groups immediately said, "Well, we're not playing any monstrous races there."
Really, as the DM, that's all you have to say, that it's for the story and lore aspects and most players, I've found, will be comfortable with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm setting up a new game, and in the process of creating a sort of Player's Guide on character creation I ran into a sort of mental tongue twister, where I'm not sure I'm properly conveying my intent with regards to limiting the groups choice in certain Races and Classes. I wanted to know if anyone could lend their thoughts on how to best present these restrictions. What I have below is a sort of example on my current attempt. If people could chime in with their own thoughts on Campaign or Adventure specific limitations to character generation, as well as how to diplomatically present those restrictions, I'd very much appreciate it.
The campaign world is one of my own creation but it only serves as a very temporary stepping off point, into the main adventure which will be 'Curse of Strahd.' While I have no issue with these options mechanically, and feel that they certainly fit many other Campaign Settings and Worlds, they present an issue for the thematic aesthetic of this game. Also, the location players will be spending the majority of their time in is a very closed off and insular region, where the vast majority of the populace is human. To quote directly from the adventure, “Although they know that dwarves, elves, halflings and other civilized races exist, few living Barovians have seen such creatures, let alone interacted with them. … Barovians thus react to nonhuman characters the same way most humans in the real world would react to elf, dwarf, or half-orc adventurers suddenly walking the streets. Most such outsiders are scorned, feared, or shunned.” Keep in mind, that’s the reaction to races like Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc. To allow for greater opportunities to role play and interact, I will not be allowing the following Races (and while other races may be allowed, a smart bit of role playing may be called for to avoid being targeted by the narrow minded populace).
At which point I present the disallowed Races as the following: Aarokocra, Bugbears, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Lizardfolk, Tabaxi, Tritons, Tortle, Changelings, Warforged, Centaurs, Loxodon, Minotaurs, Simic Hybrid, Vedalken, Verdan, Locathah, and Grung.
Somewhat similarly, I'm not allowing the Artificer at this time, as my world is not Eberron. There have been advances with regards to both engineering, the sciences, arcane science and such, but for players this option will not be currently present.
I was actually tempted to allow artificers, as there are people in the setting who have stunts that are a bit mad science like:
the Abbot playing Frankenstein, a bunch of animated objects, Blinsky and Fritz von Weerg, Ezmerelda's wagon, Rictavio deciding that plate armored saber tooth tigers make sense
I currently haven't started it and I don't have Eberron so I haven't allowed it, but...
In any case, I don't see any need to give a reason beyond "That's the feel I want for the setting". If necessary, point out that the only people who get into Ravenloft are the people the Mists want there. I was thinking of offering a bribe for playing humans, such as assigning point costs to different races (using point build).
Just warn players up-front and, if they are reasonable, they should be able to deal with it.
Every once in a while you will run into a person who wants to play an Orc but does NOT want to be treated negatively by the populace. Not sure what to do with people like that, but a firm "no" might be all you have at that point.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Phew, thanks to you both. I was worried that players in this current edition of D&D were a little opposed to anything less than "give me everythign!", so I'm glad to hear other DM's are okay with putting restrictions into place on what they will or will not allow.
Plenty are. But it doesn't matter what "most" current D&D players want -- only what your players at the table want. There are some players who, if you said nothing, would make something very typical like a dwarf or a human and never even consider a goblin or bugbear PC. But if you dare tell them no bugbears allowed, they will immediately want to make one and fight tooth and nail for you to allow it. (And then usually that same player will wildly object when you have the townsfolk react in fear, dislike, prejudice, etc., against that character.) This is a personality type I have never understood -- but I have observed the phenomenon. So you will need to know if you have someone like that in your party.
My fix for this used to be to get that player talking about character concepts early, and see if I could get him excited about something. Once he gets all into the idea of his Dwarven Ranger, he might not want to drop it for that Bugbear concept even after you ban them. But you just never know with people like that.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Usually first campaign with a new group, I’ll let them do pretty much anything. I figure at that point we are all learning about each other’s play styles. I can learn about them by just letting them rip, and they can build trust that I’m going to be fair with the rules and have a good plan for an interesting campaign. Subsequent campaigns then, they trust me enough that if I ban something I have a good reason, and I know that bob will lose his mind if he can’t be an elf, so I can try and accommodate that.
It has been a very rare campaign for anyone to play a full race which is not in the PHB. Variants of Tiefling, Half-Elf, etc. are usually allowed. Monstrous Characters almost always require DM approval. Of course the very rare, includes running an anti-hero campaign where the PHB races were the "bad guys".
As long as the table agrees on what the DM is presenting and why, and if there is any desired exceptions, it is discussed. Following campaign world guidelines tends to be a pretty safe and easily justifiable way of restrictions.
In my experience if the DM has done some solid world-building and has presented the players with an assortment of playable races, even if some are not allowed, players are usually happy to live with the restrictions because they want to play in a well-developed game world.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with what everyone is saying, but I would suggest a slightly different approach. I tweaked your opening:
The campaign world is one of my own creation but it only serves as a very temporary stepping off point, into the main adventure which will be 'Curse of Strahd.' I'm want to set a certain thematic aesthetic for this game. You will be spending the majority of your time in is a very closed off and insular region, where the vast majority of the populace is human. To quote directly from the adventure, “Although they know that dwarves, elves, halflings and other civilized races exist, few living Barovians have seen such creatures, let alone interacted with them. … Barovians thus react to nonhuman characters the same way most humans in the real world would react to elf, dwarf, or half-orc adventurers suddenly walking the streets. Most such outsiders are scorned, feared, or shunned.” Keep in mind, that’s the reaction to races like Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc. With that being said, we will be using all the races and classes from the Player's Handbook, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, (insert other books here), and the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
Did you notice what I did there? I'm not taking away classes and races, I'm saying "look at everything you get to use!" It may be a more positive way to approach as opposed to, "look what I'm taking away."
I hope this helps and you have an excellent campaign.
That sort of wording just makes people think maybe they can use other books. It may be faster to say 'Only races from these sources', but in the end you have to tell people which things are unavailable, as well as which things are available.
I don't know how the wording makes it sound like other books are included... In my case, I'm the only one in my group who owns the books, so limiting the content with the Content Manager is pretty quick and easy...
I agree that this is a good approach. In my new campaign, I made a list of many races (3 human subraces, 2 Dwarven, 2 Elven, 2 Gnome, 2 Halfling, Half-Elves, Aarakocra, Centaurs) and for each one said where they came from and what most people in the starting area would think of members of each race. I worded it as, "You might be this, and you would have this relationship to the Empire," for each race. This list was so long that it was supposed to be one sheet but it ran a little long. I did not say "You can't be a goblin," but just didn't include things like goblins, bugbears, etc., on the list.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In my homebrew, I simply give a list of what races can be playable. My current world has 25 race selections which are playable, except not really. There are five human "races" (humans in this world are the result of interbreeding between the other races), and five dragonborn "races" (cause there are only five types of dragons), no "outsider races" nor half races per se. All races have been tweaked a bit to make sure there are no "clear winners", with a universal change of a floating +1 for all races instead of the set +1. Races are grouped by some common themes.
I prove a 32 page document/booklet which has a brief history, current world status, starting location information, and a one page side write up for each of the races, along with any tweaks to the classes, and then a simple list of feats, spells, and equipment with only descriptions on any which have changed.
32 pages? Wow... I thought I was bad with about 6 pages worth of stuff and a map... LOL.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
6 pages doesn't bind well.. 32 pages includes front and back cover (blank page inside) 25 pages of race info, and 5 pages of stuff. Map is always separate, and usually first presented as a poster in the first session. Their starting point is determined on Q&A based upon character concepts, choices, backstory, etc. The more detailed "what they know" for the start of the campaign tends to be specific for each character, which flushes out the starting point geography, problems, and NPC's. (So the Barbarian/Druid/Ranger will "know" a different set of people and problems then the Cleric/Paladin and so on. Fighters/Sorcerors/Warlocks/Bards are much more "Grab bag" of what they know more defined by backstory than "profession")
All my docs are electronic so binding doesn't matter.
Also I want to be clear. I have way more than 6 pages of material written. I just didn't feel like it was a good idea to give more than 6 pages out before the campaign started. And even there it was not a '6 page document' but 6 individual "one sheets" that briefly summarized things like the culture, laws, and so forth. For the details, I have a World Anvil website that they can use to plumb the depths if they want. I know one guy has... not sure about the rest. That is up to them and their motivation/interest/time available.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In one game I'm in, the DM simply said, "I'm only allowing Human, Aasimar and Tiefling races for the world I'm working on," and the group said "Alright, sounds good."
In one of the Avernus groups I'm running I said, "You're going to be in Baldur's Gate," and the groups immediately said, "Well, we're not playing any monstrous races there."
Really, as the DM, that's all you have to say, that it's for the story and lore aspects and most players, I've found, will be comfortable with it.