DMs, Please Stop Arbitrarily Limiting Race Choice in Your Games

There is a particular refrain that I keep hearing on the forums from dungeon masters. While the specifics vary from person to person, and game to game, they all sound something like this:

"Why do my players want to play all the weird, unusual, or exotic races in my game? Why does no one want to just play the races in the core book?"

What's wrong with humans and half-orcs, huh?

Since this seems to be such a common complaint, I'm going to do my best to address it. But before we get going, I'm going to assume that you're playing in a setting where the races your players want actually exist, and if they don't exist in the setting that you made it clear they aren't available in your pitch/Session 0.

Okay? Okay, let's get started.

The Shiny Blue Ball

Have you ever noticed that when a new game or supplement comes out that it's all people want to play for a while? Like how everyone lost their mind over the hybrid classes when Paizo released the Advanced Class Guide? A lot of the time you see the same thing with weird, unusual, or rare race options. Part of the appeal for them is they're new, they're different, or they've been restricted at other tables, or in other games. So players want to take them for a test drive, and see how they handle.

Androids are a base race now? Score!

Sometimes the shiny blue ball is just how new the race is, but sometimes there are other factors at play. Maybe it has racial advantages (the strix's flight, a dragonborn's breath weapon, etc.) that a player wants to build their character around. It's also possible that the race fits an archetype or idea the player has for the specific story they want to tell with their character.

And sure, sometimes it's just because a player wants to be different. Don't shame them for that, it's what they think is fun, and nine times out of ten it isn't hurting anyone.

It's also important to remember that the core races of your game (the humans, dwarves, halflings, etc.) may be less appealing to players for a list of other reasons. One is that they're common, so it's likely they've played several characters of these races before. Maybe they lack the mechanical advantages of the unusual race choice. And, speaking from experience, the core races are old standbys. Nothing wrong with them, just as there was nothing wrong with the base class list when all those hybrid classes came out. But sometimes you want to slip into something new, rather than just putting on the same hoodie you've worn for years now.

But It's My Game!

The most common reason I've seen DMs defend their decisions to limit races is the age-old, "My game, my rules." While that's technically true, it's important to remember that you're not a put-upon parent managing a bunch of kids. Everyone at the table is here to have fun, and to contribute to the story.

With that said, you are perfectly within your rights as the DM not to allow certain races, classes, or whatever you want in your game. But if you're going to say no, you should be able to provide a reason beyond, "Because I don't like the way you're having fun at my table." And if you're going to do it, as stated above, you need to make that clear and up-front in your pitch for the game, or in your Session 0 discussion. Because if a player agrees to those terms, then they've agreed to the game as you laid it out.

"I don't want to deal with that," is also not great, as far as reasons go.

Why do you have to explain yourself? Well, because we're all taking part in this story together, and if you're disagreeing with a player over a thematic or flavor thing, then you should really explain where you're coming from so you can both reach a mutual understanding. Because if the player's character doesn't actually break any rules, there's not much reason to deny them based purely on their race choice, class choice, or any of those other basic building blocks. Especially if their concept doesn't violate any of the terms you set forth as conditions for joining the game.

For example, there are some perfectly valid reasons to say no to a race choice. Some of those are:

- That race doesn't exist in this setting (particularly important for DMs making their own worlds to explain in Session 0, or when pitching their game).

- That race is not part of the core setting we're using (this comes up when players want to make their own races, or use third-party stats as a way to bring in stuff that doesn't already exist in your game).

- That race cannot survive in this location (this is a very rare example, but works if you have, say, a merfolk race that has to spend several hours a day immersed in water trying to join a game set in the middle of a desert. It should be noted, however, that if the player has a workaround for the limitation then you should consider allowing it).

The problem is that most of the time a conflict like this is not between a player's desire and the setting's limitations. It's between the game the player wants to be part of, and the DM's vision for the game they want to run. In this case, you need to take a breath, and see if you can meet in the middle somehow.

EDIT: Since there seems to be continuing confusion, I felt I needed to spell this out here. Arbitrary limitations are ones that have no basis in the setting, the story, or the rules. We are talking expressly about player races that exist in your setting, and which are open and available, but which a DM has chosen to deny anyway. We aren't talking about races that aren't in your world, or races that don't have stats in your world, or races who aren't allowed by the strictures and requirements of your story. Hopefully that clears things up.

The "Yes, But" Approach

Lots of DMs have likely heard that it's better to say, "yes, but," than to give their players a flat-out, "no." Why? Because it shows you're willing to work with them, and it tests their resolve regarding how badly they want/need a part of their character in order for it to work/interest them.

"Where does it say you can play a sentient bear?"

It's a perfectly valid thing for you to feel thrown off by unexpected or weird player requests. However, you should sit down with your players, and use the mystical phrase, "I have some concerns," in order to put the two of you on the same page.

For example, say you have a player who really wants to play a tiefling. Tieflings exist in your setting, but because they're seen as untrustworthy and dangerous in the area this game takes place, they're often met with a lot of hostility. Maybe they were the foot soldiers in a recent war, and so there's a lot of negative feelings and wounds that haven't healed yet. Whatever, point is that they're a big, weird character who may have a target painted between their horns. So you bring this issue up to the player, and ask how they plan to deal with those repercussions.

Maybe the player suggests giving this character more angelic features, allowing them to pretend to be an aasimar, or using magic to "pass" for another race to avoid suspicion. Maybe they take a background that makes them a folk hero (possibly for actions they took during said war), or you make the character a local so that there's more of a, "if you raise 'em right, they turn out just fine," sort of attitude (also useful for playing any traditionally "evil" race in a way that isn't really all that evil). Perhaps they're good friends with a local character, and that character vouches for them, deflecting a lot of (but perhaps not all) of the hostility directed their way.

Or maybe the player just nods, thanks you for the warning, but says that they are more than willing to deal with that as a consequence of playing their character the way they want to.

This is the part where, hard as it can sometimes be, you should take your foot off the brake and let your players do their thing. As long as their character does not violate any rules of the setting or the game (including the requirements you set forth in Session 0), and they aren't using this character's unique features to be disruptive, what's the harm in letting them have it?

Because I will say this much; giving someone a shiny toy is a sure-fire way to make them invested in your game right from the first session. Saying no, I don't want those in my game, however, is a great way to toss a bucket of sand onto your player's enthusiasm. And it may be a pain to deal with a goblin berserker or an aasimar wizard, but I guarantee it is nowhere near as difficult as trying to build that player's enthusiasm for your game back up.

Like, Follow, and Stay in Touch!

That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday. Hopefully you found this suggestions useful!

For more of my work, check out my Vocal archive, and stop by the YouTube channel Dungeon Keeper Radio. Or if you'd prefer to read some of my books, like my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife or my latest short story collection The Rejects, then head over to My Amazon Author Page!

To stay on top of all my latest releases, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now Pinterest as well! To support my work, consider Buying Me a Ko-Fi, or heading to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a regular, monthly patron. That one helps ensure you get more Improved Initiative, and it means you'll get my regular, monthly giveaways as a bonus!