I have seen from some other RPG gurus out there that I am being a "bad" game master for restricting my players to certain races and classes in my home brewed campaign world. Something about I'm keeping my players from enacting their fantasy desires, but I'm not buying it, not changing my house rules, and not feeling terribly bad about it. And neither should you. Remember, your enjoyment in the game world is just as important as your players' enjoyment, possibly even more so due to the game can run minus a player or two, but is a bit hard to happen without the game master. However, you can't drive off all of your players or there's not a game there, either, so if you are going to stomp on their dreams, do so in a limited fashion and have good reasons for what you are doing.
What? That's it, go home, nothing more to see here.
Fine, here are the restrictions for my D&D 5e game world and my reasons behind them, give you an idea of what I'm talking about. All of these are from the base books only, as anything beyond those books has to be brought to me first, and my players just aren't quite that deep into the game yet.
Classes - I don't allow the following classes:
-Barbarian. I don't have anything against Barbarians, but due to me fighting "murder hoboism" by making the PCs agents of the local government, Barbarians and their whole "all civilization is bad" vibe just doesn't fit. There are Barbarians out there, but for now, the PCs can't choose this type of character.
-Bard. Yep, I'm an old school role player and I hate bards. Show me your favorite Bard character, and I'll show you a PC that can work just as well as ANYTHING else, just with a proficiency in a musical instrument thrown in for flavor. We don't have Chef as a character class, nor Carpenter, nor any other menial task, so why do we have "singing prat"? I do have a player who insists that he could play a Bard so awesome that I would be forced to admit the error of my ways and allow Bards back in, but since I haven't killed his PC so he can bring forth "teh awsum", I haven't seen any proof yet.
-Monk. My game world, at least the part of it my players are in right now, is medieval European themed, not Oriental themed. And yes, the Monk is very much Oriental themed, don't fool yourself that they're not. "Oh," you say, "they had monks in medieval Europe that trained to fight." Yes, they did (we call them Clerics in D&D, btw), and they trained with weapons as well as their hands, because hitting someone who is wearing metal armor with your fists and feet is stupid. Similarly, my players can choose to be a Samurai archetype Fighter, but it has to be called something else (Knight of the Order of Garglefarg) and they don't use katanas. Why? Katanas are fantastic swords... as long as the bad guys aren't wearing any armor, otherwise they suck, and again, keep your Oriental fantasy out of my European fantasy.
-Sorcerer. There are Sorcerers in my game world, but that's because all the Sorcerers are Dragonborn (see below). I have been thinking to allow other Sorcerers to appear, but if/when they do, it'll be in a different part of the world than what the PCs are currently in.
-Warlock. This class has always bothered me, partly because it became really popular in 4th edition and is here in 5th due to nostalgia for that crowd (of which I never was a member of). Mostly for me though, is that the Warlock is inherently greedy - I needed help or I desired the esoteric knowledge or whatever, and something out there answered - and so Warlocks don't really need any other party members, except when their patron compels them to do something and they can't handle it on their own. Plus, the most interesting part of any Warlock character's story (the part where they gained their powers) happens outside of the normal game, in the player's mind, or just between the DM and the player, or even in a Session Zero with the rest of the party merely looking on. I am tempted to begin allowing Warlocks in my game world, but only as a multiclassing option, and only then when the party is on the verge of a TPK.
Races - I do not allow the following races to be PCs:
-Dragonborn. Here's another 4th edition nostalgia-fest that just grates on me. Why, why WotC, did you give us this race to play? The game itself is called Dungeons & DRAGONS for fuck's sake, why would you want to play anything other than a Dragonborn? It's way too fan-service-y of a race, so I made it important to the backstory of my world and while they exist in my game world, you can't play one. And to be honest, I would have far more been handed the half-dragon template from old 3rd edition, or be given half-dragon stats of the four base races from the outset.
-Gnome. Yet another race I've long had no liking of, Gnomes have never been well defined in the game, as depending on the edition you're playing they are described as even shorter Dwarves, tall Halflings, really short Elves, or a confusing mix of the above. Listen, in my game world, you get Dwarves and Halflings, and Elves are taller than Humans, and that's it, don't need another race that's too much like the others and confusing to everybody.
-Half-Elf/-Orc. Oh, good old John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, your estate sued the crap out of TSR for infringing on your work, and while Gygax and company claimed otherwise, these two races were the proof in that pudding. We don't have half-dwarves or half-gnomes or elf-dwarves or halfling-orcs in D&D, because JRR didn't have any of them in his works. I'm down with that, I've already kicked out one race for not having enough of an unique flavor (Gnomes) and wouldn't mind having every possible combination out there - and this is the important part - ONLY IF THEY HAVE THEIR OWN UNIQUE FLAVOR. Trying to not only balance all the benefits and detriments of these new races, but also coming up with something that feels different enough from the core races? Way too much work for too little outcome, so better to just slim down the choices to the iconic races from the beginning. Plus, every Half-Elf turns out to be Tanis Half-Elven from Dragonlance (I hate my parents, both humans and elves hate me, oh woe is me), and every Half-Orc seems to be the result of a horrible rape.
-Drow/Duergar. Not only am I such a bastard that I restrict classes and races to my players, I also have restricted the sub-races (Lightfoot Halflings, Hill Dwarves, and Wood Elves), at least if their PC is a native of the central empire that the story revolves around. It gives the empire a theme, and also gives me competing kingdoms of the other sub-races to use as a counter-point to the party. Drow and Duergar just fall into this category - if all of the players wanted to play as Drow or Duergar, I would allow it, but one Drizz't knock-off is too many, and I'm not allowing that.
The above races are all from the Player's Handbook and are considered core, but the following are all from Volo's Guide to Monsters and considered optional from the outset. I may let the players eventually play some of these, but for the most part, they'll have to earn the right by making it through this first overarching campaign I have them in, first.
-Aasimar/Tieflings. Yet again, 4th edition nostalgia fest. There are representatives of both of these half breeds in the game world, but the players can't play one, as even the ones that are extant are more focused on what their Celestial/Infernal forebears are doing than what is going on in the mortal realm.
-Firbolg. Do exist in the world, but like the Barbarian, very anti-civilization, so don't fit with the party real well.
-Goliath. Simply don't exist in the world. We have Firbolg, why did we need another playable mini-giant? Is this another 4th edition nostalgia-fest? Probably. Feh.
-Kenku. These are kind of neat, but with the description of the race as a whole, this is definitely for experienced players only. So for now, not player accessible.
-Lizardfolk. I also like to lump in with the Lizardfolk all the other nigh-Human monstrous races - Orcs, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, and Goblins - and don't think that all of these are automatically evil in my game world, but until the situation is just right, the players are not going to play any of these. That right situation would either be the whole party playing as a monstrous race, or it could be a PC dies near a tribe of one of these races, and that PC's player decides they're playing a monster that joins in with the rest of the party as a replacement PC.
-Triton. I'm actually okay with these, but since we're playing land-locked adventures, these really don't make much sense. If we take the campaign to the high seas, these will definitely be allowed into the party.
Remember, if the world makes sense to you, stick to your guns and either the players will hate the restrictions too much and leave, or they'll learn to deal.
EDIT: I somehow missed Tabaxi, sorry about that. Anyway, Tabaxi also not currently allowed, not because I don't like them or think they're too advanced for the table, but because I wanted simple. I'd prefer not only to have Tabaxi (cat folk), Kenku (bird folk) and Thri-Kreen (insect folk), but also a dog folk and rat folk to keep the
No comments:
Post a Comment