There is a less heavy handed route.

If you write a cool setting intro and you cast the humans as really interesting with some cool cultural elements and you downplay or outright remove some races then a lot of people will want to play humans.

In a LotR game you get plenty of people what want to play Rohirim, Dunedan, men of Gondor, even Haradians and Variag cos they seem cool compared to the non human races.

the trouble is the rule book pitches humans as one of a dozen races all equal and the other races are more extreme and so make a beter mechanical fit for certain classes.
This was always the way and so level limits which was an awful rule fix because it was counter to immersion and most games ran til about 6-7th level so they never became critical. If you give the non humans all the mechanical benefits from 1st level then more PCs will be non humans and perversely the adventures that survive the very dangerous low levels are likely to be non humans so more mid level PCs will be non-humans... etc

In 1e used to just rank the races in terms of age. Elves, Dwarves, others
Elves need 2x XP to progress, Dwarves 1.7 x XP Others 1.5x . Now in old 1e D&D that worked fine because of how XP worked. an elf would be one level lower than a human who had been on the same adventures because XP basically doubel between levels. So Elves live longer but learn slower.. It worked on my levels as
i) it feels awful and promotes people playing humans
ii) in actual play it actually means a 5th level Elf fighter has the same XP as a 6th level human fighter which just about makes up for the Elf's +1 Dex, +1 with longsword and long bow, immunity to sleep spells etc etc ....

In 5e I would just make the humans cooler. When you hand out your setting notes be more -

"The Halak are a fierce and independent people who have resisted the expansion of the Galan Empire for decades. It is often joked that Halak children can ride before they can walk and this is often close to the truth. This close bond with their horses mean that all Halak get proficieny bonus on riding and animal husbandry (horses). Unlike the other peoples of The Thran the focus on horsemanship means that both males and females can become warriors and female Halak raiders with their striking tottem tatoos are feared by homesteaders and Galan legionaires alike."

And less
"Halak = human horsemen tribes a bit like mongols."

Quote from: Omega;814323At this point with a clearer head I have no idea what to really call it. Passive-agressive? Its one thing when the game tells you "roll on this table" and another when the DM tells you "Roll on this table" when he really means "I dont want you playing so-n-so so I weighted it heavily against it."

How about call it what it is, setting appropriate racial/species rarity?  Maybe instead of "I don't want you playing this" he's really you know, not a totally made up caricature of the Evil GM that exists only in your head and is an actual person who really just means "Noldor are really rare in the 4th Age of Middle Earth, but you can play one if you roll well on the racial generation table".

Quote from: CRKrueger;814327Maybe instead of "I don't want you playing this" he's really you know, not a totally made up caricature of the Evil GM that exists only in your head and is an actual person who really just means "Noldor are really rare in the 4th Age of Middle Earth, but you can play one if you roll well on the racial generation table".

Well if you can get those evil GMs out of your head. Sure. Dont obsess over it like that. :rolleyes:

In one case we have a DM during worldbuilding decide that say elves are rare and whips up a simple table for a player to roll on. 5 percent chance. He doesnt care if theres elves in the group or not. Its just a neet idea to apply.

In the other case the DM just doesnt want the players playing elves and instead of saying so, cranks out the exact same table.

Unrelated to the possibility the game itself might have a table to roll on.

From the sounds of it the OP falls into neither category anyhow. He just wants to know if its a viable approach and some of us (me badly) pointed  out that while it is viable. It can come across poorly.

Quote from: Opaopajr;814286Define the problem, what sort of ideal you want to reach, and we can get you there.

To clarify: I don't mind a game where everybody wants to be elves, or if everybody wants to be wizards; that's fine. "Only humans" isn't what I want at the table. What I want is a party that is well balanced for the setting. If we were adventuring in the Underdark it would be entirely appropriate for everyone to play drow, except for maybe one or two non-drow. We're adventuring in distinctly human lands, where everything else is exotic.

What I envision is something like the party that results from B/X character generation - humans of various backgrounds, their vocation giving them interest and meeting, and a few mysterious demi-humans coming along for their own, separate purposes.

Instead what I get is, as you put it: "another motley crew ambling through the backwaters and expecting egalitarian bliss". It seems to be that for 5e RAW there is no way around the party being constructed of all uncommon and strange combinations.

I don't think this is a clash of GM/Player expectations. We've talked about the setting and my expectations in great detail. Just, during character creation players make character choices as individuals, it does not matter if they rulebook says: "drow have almost no reason to leave the underdark" or "sorcerers are very rare", the player says: "Neat, I get to be rare!" and so does every other player, apparently.

This isn't something that can be dealt with by bans, because on a selective basis there's nothing wrong with a single drow or a single sorcerer. And I understand how random tables could upset some people. But so long as players are making individual character choices - and all races in 5e are getting 'equal billing' - the party is going to be a miss-matched mish-mash, entirely divorced from setting or context.

I'm just wondering what I can do to bring the party more in alignment with purpose.

//Panjumanju

But you're telling a group 'ok, a few of you might be nonhuman' with no real structure. What do you expect?

Everyone is going to pick what they feel like playing, shrugging and assuming other folks might make the choices to round things out.


What you need to do is get the group to make THE PARTY, I think, not just go off and make isolated characters.

Quote from: Panjumanju;814376Just, during character creation players make character choices as individuals, it does not matter if they rulebook says: "drow have almost no reason to leave the underdark" or "sorcerers are very rare", the player says: "Neat, I get to be rare!" and so does every other player, apparently.

This isn't something that can be dealt with by bans, because on a selective basis there's nothing wrong with a single drow or a single sorcerer. And I understand how random tables could upset some people. But so long as players are making individual character choices - and all races in 5e are getting 'equal billing' - the party is going to be a miss-matched mish-mash, entirely divorced from setting or context.

Well, I don't feel there's anything wrong with randomness - but if it's not to your group's taste, then no reason to stick to it.

For a non-random solution, you could make the players create their characters cooperatively as a group, and put requirements on the group of PCs as a whole instead of requirements on PCs individually. Then the players would negotiate among themselves about who gets to be the one rare elf, for example, possibly trading off on other things to do so.

I definitely recommend group character creation. I'll never do it otherwise if I can help it. Solves a bunch of these problems AND can build a special kind of party cohesion.

I personally love having some binding 'thing' for the group, which can help players find ways to work together.

At least twice I've done it as an extended family; yes, you might really think your adoptive half-brother is a fucking idiot, but, well, family.

Quote from: Panjumanju;814376To clarify: I don't mind a game where everybody wants to be elves, or if everybody wants to be wizards; that's fine. "Only humans" isn't what I want at the table. What I want is a party that is well balanced for the setting. If we were adventuring in the Underdark it would be entirely appropriate for everyone to play drow, except for maybe one or two non-drow. We're adventuring in distinctly human lands, where everything else is exotic.

What I envision is something like the party that results from B/X character generation - humans of various backgrounds, their vocation giving them interest and meeting, and a few mysterious demi-humans coming along for their own, separate purposes.

Good! So, you have clearly defined what you want, demographic representation in character generation. And it is essentially the same as I do.

Quote from: Panjumanju;814376Instead what I get is, as you put it: "another motley crew ambling through the backwaters and expecting egalitarian bliss". It seems to be that for 5e RAW there is no way around the party being constructed of all uncommon and strange combinations.

There's the money quote.

5e is not built upon baked in demographic restrictions. There's no Attribute Prerequisites to limit choice for one, for either class or race. There's no racial level caps, either. There's not even a limiter on ratio of Backgrounds — so you can have every PC be a noble in your game, all the time, every time, bullying NPCs forever! Yay!

You know why they did this, as do I. They did this because they have no good mechanical solution to offer that would not result in World (Internet Shitstorm) War III. They left that responsibility to the GM, as they have so much else about setting. You create those mechanics. You take that heat at the table.

Quote from: Panjumanju;814376I don't think this is a clash of GM/Player expectations. We've talked about the setting and my expectations in great detail. Just, during character creation players make character choices as individuals, it does not matter if they rulebook says: "drow have almost no reason to leave the underdark" or "sorcerers are very rare", the player says: "Neat, I get to be rare!" and so does every other player, apparently.

Because the rulebook offers setting recommendation, but offers no mechanical limiter, it is left to the GM. And if you don't give players the 'No,' word, they'll obviously take it as 'Yes!' You are trying to hide behind a system to do your GM obligation of hammering out — and enforcing — your world setting.

Do your job already, step on toes, command your table, make walk those who won't abide. This isn't hard. The only real challenge is selecting a methodology.

Quote from: Panjumanju;814376This isn't something that can be dealt with by bans, because on a selective basis there's nothing wrong with a single drow or a single sorcerer. And I understand how random tables could upset some people. But so long as players are making individual character choices - and all races in 5e are getting 'equal billing' - the party is going to be a miss-matched mish-mash, entirely divorced from setting or context.

I'm just wondering what I can do to bring the party more in alignment with purpose.

//Panjumanju

Boot them in the ass and say that just because XYZ isn't hard coded into 5e rules, 5e rules explicitly empowers me as the GM to tinker with the system as I like. Don't like it, leave. Anyone still here? Good. Here's how we're gonna do this.

Very simple.

So, as for the how-to:

Bans - absolute cleanest solution when it comes to CCGs. It changes ratios the least, adds no mechanics, leaves no real whinging for exceptions. A fantastic tool. However, it is easy to get ahead of yourself with it.

Demographics Random Table - gives a clean limiter of up to what may be played. You create the table, you allow dice to arbitrate. Some players will be willing to play the common races anyway and may likely skip the table experience altogether.
There are two main ways of reading it:
a) What you roll is what you can only get. Roll equals sole value.
b) What you roll is up to what you can get. Roll equals value and all previous.

Quota - This will likely piss everyone off, as the special snowflake becomes like a brass ring prize on a carousel. You can then auction it off to whoever most needs to be the rarest among them. Or run a cockfight between them, I don't know or care. The rest get progressively more common races.

Heartfelt Appeals - This is the judicial appeal process. This is where you outright restrict races to the vast demographic majority and everything else is on appeal. You may, if the appeal and need is so great, consider allowing ultra rare and banned classes on a case by case basis. But, like oregano, a little goes a long way there.

I myself use Bans, Tables, & Appeals together. Quotas is just asking for acrimony, in my experience (as a player). Sometimes I rely heavier on one tool than the other, sometimes I have been known to use only a single tool (like all but X is banned). Regardless, I take the reins of my table and cater the game to my needs, not the other way around — or wait for the game to be "fixed" for me.

Do it! It'll be fine. And if your players have a public meltdown over it, remember, it's about elf games. (And try to record it for posterity.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;814392I myself use Bans, Tables, & Appeals together. Quotas is just asking for acrimony, in my experience (as a player). Sometimes I rely heavier on one tool than the other, sometimes I have been known to use only a single tool (like all but X is banned). Regardless, I take the reins of my table and cater the game to my needs, not the other way around — or wait for the game to be "fixed" for me.

You seem to have quite the system unto yourself going on. I understand your point that I need to be more assertive at the table - I don't think that's one of my weaknesses, but I understand what you're saying.

Quote from: jhkim;814384...you could make the players create their characters cooperatively as a group...

Quote from: Necrozius;814386I definitely recommend group character creation. I'll never do it otherwise if I can help it. Solves a bunch of these problems AND can build a special kind of party cohesion.

How do you go about this? I see a character - especially in 5th edition, as a many-fold thing, which would be difficult to tackle with a linear approach. Do you go around the table deciding races first, then classes? Do you start with backgrounds? Do you start with what people feel strongly about and work out? Am I over-thinking an organic process?

//Panjumanju

Let me be the first to say you are overthinking an organic process.

As for group chargen... I personally hate it. Very design by committee and clique shenanigans. I like to nip that "appeal to the table alpha" in the bud. The GM is the alpha, and the omega; no one is "pushed to be the healbot," or whatever.

But different points of view and all.

Quote from: Panjumanju;814396How do you go about this? I see a character - especially in 5th edition, as a many-fold thing, which would be difficult to tackle with a linear approach. Do you go around the table deciding races first, then classes? Do you start with backgrounds? Do you start with what people feel strongly about and work out? Am I over-thinking an organic process?

Yes.

Roleplaying is a group activity, kinda makes sense to create characters together.

I think dangling carrots to the group is one of the best ways to focus them in a direction.

When you say something like, "it would be awesome, beneficial, nifty, fun,(whatever) if there was at least one Folk Hero in the group or Human in the group or Warlock in the group or etc."  
The group knows you are looking for a couple of things, but the restriction isn't to the point of "Holy shit Dude, go write the goddamn Mary Sue Fic and email it to us."

When you mention a Sailor Background would be helpful and none of them decide to use that background.  It is on them, when they end up stranded on a ship floating in the ocean with no ideas on how to sail the thing.

I prefer simple nudges and then let them decide, like;
This is an Urban Political Campaign, have fun.
 (Actual characters two idiots tried to force on the group[even after knowing the campaign concept] Elf Druid who hates urban areas refusing to enter them, Half-Orc Ranger[bandit] wanted by the town for murder, so won't enter the urban areas. Then these two got all offended by not catering to their whims of character choice.)
compared to
This is an Urban Political Campaign where you all are Halflings Bards
(this was an actual game, started off interesting and fell flat in 4 sessions)

Quote from: Panjumanju;814396How do you go about this? I see a character - especially in 5th edition, as a many-fold thing, which would be difficult to tackle with a linear approach. Do you go around the table deciding races first, then classes? Do you start with backgrounds? Do you start with what people feel strongly about and work out? Am I over-thinking an organic process?

Note that I'm not saying group creation is the best overall - just that this is a case where it might be preferred. Also, I'm playing D&D5 now, but we didn't do group creation.

In other games when I've done group creation, the most typical is that everyone suggests a one-sentence pitch for each of their character ideas. Sometimes people have only one character idea - sometimes they have a few.  The sentence will generally include the equivalent of race, class and background. After all the pitches, there is some discussion about how these would work together as a group.

Once everyone has agreed on the one-sentence pitches, then they establish some basic links between the character (like who are brothers and so forth).

Then we do detailed character creation - stats, skills, and so forth. The details are mostly independent, but people will bring up certain details or changes to the group, and sometimes there will be a question from another. (i.e. "I'm thinking of being hunted by the rangers of the North. Is anyone allied to them?")

Then we work out the details of how they relate to each other.

DM looks at the 4 players in his group, "In this game, i only want 1 of you to be non-human. Sort it out among yourselves."

Players, "Why is that."

DM, "Here's why - blah, blah, blah."

Players, "Ok, lets do it. Jim wants to be an elf and i want to be a halfling. paper, scissors, stone?"

Quote from: Panjumanju;814376I'm just wondering what I can do to bring the party more in alignment with purpose.

C'mon, man.  You've got several dozen posts' worth of suggestions.  Pick one.  Pick a couple.  Swear to heaven, you're starting to sound like someone who just devoutly wishes the whole problem would resolve to your liking, without anyone having to do or say anything.

What you do is talk to your players. You say "Look, guys.  I'm looking to run a humanocentric campaign, in a setting where non-humans are rare and people don't generally like or trust them.  It'd be best if more -- or all -- of you design human PCs.  I guarantee you that things will go a lot harder for the party the more non-humans you have.  So ... anyone want to reconsider your character's race before it's too late?"

There.  That's it.  Elapsed time, about ten seconds.  

It's a source of continual mystery to me that in a hobby which requires us to talk to and with one another, for every action we take and every interaction we have, we're so gunshy about open and frank communication about our issues.