I'm running a weekly Dungeons & Dragons 5e campaign now after having done a series of one-shots so the players could get to know the classes. Of 4 to 6 players, maybe 5 different character creation sessions in total, they've made....one human.
The kind of game I want to focus on is human-centric. Other races are contributing to the general fantasy landscape. I've told the players that they may have a bit of trouble going into human settlements because human villages would be, for instance, frightened of a half-dragon, or throw stones at a drow, or be very guarded against a mountain dwarf.
I don't mind demi-humans in the party - I think they add lots of interesting flavour to the make-up, but when it's a party of everything-but-human, an entirely mixed bag of various almost-monsters adventuring together, it distinctly clashes with my impression of what a Dungeons & Dragons game should be. I just don't want the majority of the party to be playing the 'weird outsider one'.
As a preface: I came to D&D with 3rd edition and worked my way backwards in editions. When I discovered B/X I kind of fell in love with it (not to say it doesn't have other problems) and discovered that B/X was the kind of thing I always thought of as D&D without knowing it. It made playing a demi-human feel special and different, at least to me. My group is only interested in 3rd edition and beyond, and I'm the one that coxed them into 5e.
I think the races in 5e are very well thought-out, well balanced and well designed. However, when they are well-balanced with the human choice, and interesting-of-themselves, then how can human compete as a selection? Of course humans are going to be a minority in a party of characters.
I've thought of letting human characters start off at a slightly higher level in order to encourage the setting I'm trying to evoke, but I'm concerned players may find this unfair.
Suggestions?
//Panjumanju
As long as you say it up front, and explain what sort of world you want, I don't think it'd be unfair.
Would it work just as well to treat a demi-human party as a minority in the world? Maybe reflect that in the attitudes of the NPCs they meet, etc?
I know where you are coming from. For some reason, I always have a couple of players who always insist on being an elf or dwarf (no matter what group of players it is).
Even in my D&D Bronze Age game (where playing anything but a human was strongly discouraged) I still ended up with three centaurs.
One day I do hope to run a D&D campaign that is more "Game of Thrones" fantasy with only human PCs, but I haven't gotten a lot of player interest in that sort of thing.
It's tempting to rig the deck to get players to chose what you want them to do, but sometimes, well.
I recommend not being coy and saying flat-out 'I want you all to play humans' or roll a die on who gets to play a non-human.
I've been very upfront about the setting and the demographics of the world. I just still feel like I'm flying in the face of player expectation. They have encountered some conflict with NPCs - that's the obvious way of doing it, and I'm okay running "band of outsiders in a human-centric world" as a campaign ....once.... but if this is just the expectation players have approaching Dungeons & Dragons now, I'm not sure how to steer it into the direction I'd be happier to run.
//Panjumanju
Another option is 'nationalities.' I've considered this for strictly all-human games.
So instead of Human, Elf, Dwarf, you might have Esterling, Aegyptian, Frorling.
The 'elves' become long(er) lived humans of refinement and an ancient society, the dwarves are hearty mining folks, expert at crafts and selling their service as builders, and so on.
(I'm trying to remember the name, but there was an ancient Mediterranean group who were such experts in math and craft that a great deal of their prosperity came from being hired out as architects and builders throughout the ancient world)
One problem is that players often have a desire to stand out, to be 'different.'
Few things are as different, to all us humans, as... not playing a human.
I think there's also an unexamined contrarian element where if you say 'this is a game of samurai' someone is going to want to be a Klingon ninja half-dragon shaman.
Random Generation.
You can be a human if you want, otherwise you roll on the race chart and can pick anything from that rarity level or below.
You don't want everyone to make up Noldor, Warforged, Melnibonean Nobles or anything else with a ratio that turns your world into a joke...then don't let them do it.
Bring back level limits :D
On a serious note, I prefer to play humans actually. The variant racial bonus (get a free feat) pretty much makes humans my default PC unless there's something unusual that I want to try out (like my halfling battlemaster fighter)
Quote from: Will;813945I think there's also an unexamined contrarian element where if you say 'this is a game of samurai' someone is going to want to be a Klingon ninja half-dragon shaman.
Next game don't invite that person at all. When they ask why, say "Oh this campaign doesn't have Drow/Gish/Cybermancers, so I figured you wouldn't want to play". They'll walk (good) or see that you put the collective game over their wants (better).
This "screw being human" thing IS a thing, in my experience. Most games I've played have featured at least 50% non-human (some maybe 1 human). I've come to realize that some players just don't listen if you're simply "encouraging" them. For example, you say, "it's a humanocentric world--th other races are looked upon with suspicion at BEST, outright prejudice at worst." They won't catch the hint. I mean, I JUST said that to a group last week and ended up with an Elf, a halfling, a gnome a half-orc and one human.:-/
I had honestly hoped the "+1 to all stats" thing would help 5E in that regard, but people like to be Elves, Dwarves and shit, so...I have to either accept that, or rule them out and hope players still play. That said, while I DO think only way to "encourage" the creation of human PCs is to mandate them, I do have a couple ideas:
(1) Roll for it: give folks a small chance of something else in order to appear "fair." Maybe have them roll on a "birthtable," where you can be "the race you roll and under," for example:
Birth Table (roll d12):
1-9: Human
10: Halfling, Elf
11: Dwarf, Gnome
12: Half-Elf, Half-Orc
(2) Use Humans as your other races: in a couple campaigns where I DID mandate human races I also experimented with human "sub-types" that mimicked the traditonal faire, i.e, "Gamnans are hardy, stocky, warrior folk from the frigid north [insert Dwarven stat bonuses and some etc.]." That seemed to work pretty well, though the expectation at the top was "you're ALL human." I liked it because it allowed me to have a much freer reign with how I used Elves, Dwarves, etc. There was still something exotic and mysterious about them.
Are you allowing variant humans and also allowing feats? Because if so humans are possibly the best race in the game and should normally be pretty popular. If you're just using regular humans, or to a lesser extent variant humans without feats, then they kind of suck.
That only works if people are driven by optimizing, and, well, depends on your crowd. ;)
That, and people play a fantasy rpg to get away from the every day. I.e., being something other than human.
So unless you heavily reward a human, or heavily punish a demi-human, you're not going to get that many humans.
Quote from: Panjumanju;813938I've thought of letting human characters start off at a slightly higher level in order to encourage the setting I'm trying to evoke, but I'm concerned players may find this unfair.
"I want to run a game about humans, with demihumans as rare outsiders. So the only races available for this campaign are humans, and... that's it, actually."
You could probably reskin dwarves, elves, gnomes and half-orcs/elves/lings and maybe even tieflings as regional variants, but you're probably better off not, to prevent debate.
Yes, it can be done.
I ran a couple of "humans only" D&D 2E campaigns back when I was going through my own My world is humano-centric! GM phase. (15-20 years ago?) After some initial grumbling, everyone chilled out and made some awesome human characters and had a good time. Those campaigns were successful.
The important thing was, the players weren't totally hung up on playing non-human characters, and if they were just little hung up, they got over it. And eventually, I got over the whole "humans only" thing after getting it out of my system. You run a couple of games like that, it gets old.
I just tell my players what they can choose from class- and race-wise and they do. My most recent game had no dwarves, elves, hobbits, orcs, etc. Allowed races were human, human, or human. The vast majority of their foes were also human.
There really is no way around limiting player choice here. I'm not sure what else to tell you; open book character creation results in... open book character creation.
I'll say this again...
Man some of you have some totally fucked up players, and or DMs. Really.
To date I have never had a player or gamed with a player (that I know of) who was playing a non human for the "Look at me!" element. They all choose a race because it appealed to them in some way to play or they just naturally like a certain race and want to play that.
Jan liked the idea of the AD&D half-orc, board headed, outcasts, and so on. She will play other races because they look fun to play out. Bemusingly in Star Wars she played an R2 type because she does data entry for a living.
Brian played Dragonborn and equivalents because he REALLY likes the idea of dragon people. Also likes gnolls, but rarely plays them.
Kefra likes to play Gnolls if given a chance. She also plays cool aloof elves well in nearly the opposite of her usually boisterous passionate Gnolls. Has also played a rat woman.
Dev is hard to pin down. Usually plays the same race every time in the same setting. Allways a human in D&D, allways a plant in Gamma World, allways a Vrusk in Star Frontiers, etc. He finds some element in a race and sticks to it.
Mike plays whatever fits his concept. He plays a CHARACTER and is one of my favorite players to DM for. He could be a human paladin, a dragonborn sorcerer, a wolverine warrior, etc.
And me? I usually play a human because hilariously, I like to be the lone human in a group of weirdos. aheh. I've tried other races for the challenges or just for fun to see how it goes. Like Mike. I play a character.
I've seen simmilar accusations leveld at people who play classes other than Fighters and thieves and clerics. That they are doing for the "Look at me!" element. Yeah riiiiight.
Quote from: soviet;813951Are you allowing variant humans and also allowing feats? Because if so humans are possibly the best race in the game and should normally be pretty popular. If you're just using regular humans, or to a lesser extent variant humans without feats, then they kind of suck.
I'm allowing the variant human, and to 'sweeten the pot' I even said that human is the only race for whom I'd allow feats, because I really didn't want to bother with them otherwise.
The only player to pick human was the one very concerned with the rules and character optimisation, the rest of them are not as concerned with that side of the game. (Probable correlation.)
//Panjumanju
I run a humanocentric OD&D game in a world beset by a genocidal war between Elves and Dwarves. That's the setting. My players play humans because that's the core concept, but there has been one dwarf who didn't last long.
Back in 2e, we played a couple all-Elf and all-Dwarf campaigns that were really fun, especially with the Kit books from back when.
Of course, we had player buy-in from everyone who wanted to play with us. Based on forum chatter, that seems to be harder for gamers today.
Chiming in with others, if you want human PCs, only allow human characters - or require something like a random roll for non-human races.
Having a level penalty for non-humans as an incentive mixes the meaning of level, with no guarantee to get the human-majority you're looking for.
(shrugs) I've never once had a problem with saying "This next campaign is going to involve nautical adventures in an ethnically homogeneous area; please design characters who are at minimum trained sailors, and who are part of the dominant culture." Or variations of the same: a few years back I had a we're-all-young-thrill-seeking-aristocrats, and currently I have an all-mage group. I've also had no problem with saying, on the couple of occasions when I've needed to do so, "I'm sorry, but I really insist that you design a character in keeping with what I've outlined. Would you like some help with that?"
If you want your players to design characters to fit in with what you want to play, say so.
And if they insist on playing characters you've already warned them will be unpopular, and you're not forcing them to do otherwise, screw them over. Have the villagers throw stones at the drow, with a couple of them visibly stringing bows and another shouting for his daughter to run up to the castle and get Dame Sharana and her squires to saddle up. Have innkeepers and shop owners refuse to serve a party with one of "those kind" in it. Have the local temple decline to heal the party because the inflexible doctrine of the faith is that mountain dwarves have no souls, and the party imperils their own by hanging with one.
It's interesting, because outside of a Planescape game, my games and the ones I've played in tended to rather suffer from too little races other than humans. In last Shadowrun game, the only non - humans were elves, so the most humanesque of all metahumans.
My first group DMing for after moving was all humans. As was the first group played in after moving.
Quote from: Panjumanju;813938Suggestions?
In my Swords & Wizardry campaign granting human +15% xp bonus did the trick. There were some demi-human but the balance skewed back to what it was in my GURPS games.
I, too have this "problem," with demi-men dominating my table. While I wish it was more of a humanocentric group, I'm not going to offer a kind of character and then restrict players from taking it.
I consider this a different issue though from the contrarian player who insists on playing a water ogre half minotaur with the aasimar template. That's an easy one to disallow.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;814046I, too have this "problem," with demi-men dominating my table. While I wish it was more of a humanocentric group, I'm not going to offer a kind of character and then restrict players from taking it.
I consider this a different issue though from the contrarian player who insists on playing a water ogre half minotaur with the aasimar template. That's an easy one to disallow.
I once considered following this trend to its logical conclusion and thought about creating a setting where humans, and any other pure-blooded demi-humans were actually very rare. All the characters would be required to take some sort of half-blooded template or bloodline from the 3.5E
Unearthed Arcana book. The idea was to show my players just how ridiculous it all was, but it occurred to me the result would be the exact opposite, so I abandoned the project.
Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I think in the future I'm going to go with the suggestion that many of you have made of constructing a random human/demi-human table.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;814052I once considered following this trend to its logical conclusion and thought about creating a setting where humans, and any other pure-blooded demi-humans were actually very rare. All the characters would be required to take some sort of half-blooded template or bloodline from the 3.5E Unearthed Arcana book. The idea was to show my players just how ridiculous it all was, but it occurred to me the result would be the exact opposite, so I abandoned the project.
Yeah. I've often thought it would be interesting for a game to have mixed bloodlines like in Tolkien and other fantasy - so someone could have just a bit of elvish blood, or Numenorian, or similar.
I wonder what effect deleting dark vision would have on the numbers at a macro scale. Nobody has mentioned it so far in the thread, but it seems to come up frequently as a consideration when people are on the fence about a racial choice.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;814098I wonder what effect deleting dark vision would have on the numbers at a macro scale. Nobody has mentioned it so far in the thread, but it seems to come up frequently as a consideration when people are on the fence about a racial choice.
This is true, especially if the rest of the party already has darkvision and you'd be the only schmuck in need of a light source.
Quote from: Panjumanju;814062Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I think in the future I'm going to go with the suggestion that many of you have made of constructing a random human/demi-human table.
//Panjumanju
Railroading via forced random is still railroading.
But. If your campaign setting is humanocentric and demi-humans are rare. That is a different story totally.Then just
DONT ALLOW THEM AS PCS! Really. There are gnomes in OD&D and BX. But they are not a PC race.
Just say to the players. "Hey. I'd like to run a campaign where the characters are all humans." and if they walk then they walk.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;814098I wonder what effect deleting dark vision would have on the numbers at a macro scale. Nobody has mentioned it so far in the thread, but it seems to come up frequently as a consideration when people are on the fence about a racial choice.
I have one player who does that. The others dont care and promptly forget they have it if they have it.
Quote from: Omega;814116Railroading via forced random is still railroading.
But. If your campaign setting is humanocentric and demi-humans are rare. That is a different story totally.Then just DONT ALLOW THEM AS PCS! Really. There are gnomes in OD&D and BX. But they are not a PC race.
Just say to the players. "Hey. I'd like to run a campaign where the characters are all humans." and if they walk then they walk.
Railroading at character creation? Really, are you going to say that's a thing?
It's not that I only want humans - I just don't want humans to be the minority of the party. That's the problem.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Omega;814116Railroading via forced random is still railroading.
Jesus Wept. God forbid the Special Snowflake may have to actually make up a character that makes sense within the setting.
GM = "You can't have a Dalek PC in Greyhawk."
Omega = "Stop railroading me!"
Quote from: Omega;814116But. If your campaign setting is humanocentric and demi-humans are rare. That is a different story totally.Then just DONT ALLOW THEM AS PCS!
So making them non-existent as PCs is better than having a rare occurrence actually be rare via roll?
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o118/csn91/mmmkay.jpg)
Fun random idea:
Have a deck of races, classes, backgrounds, whatever.
Deal out cards, can drop any extras for another draw, maybe let players trade.
I actually do like how 5e has limited Darkvision. It is only 60' and gives Disadv on Perception (WIS) checks for sight. And from the core PHB races, everyone gets to hear... ;)
The challenge is getting a GM to incorporate the Stealth/Hide versus multi-sensory Perception contest in a dynamic manner. Too often it can be glossed into an "I Win!" button. It's also one of the reasons Thieves' Skills were seen as so much of a headache retrospectively.
GMing is an art. It can be a challenge to reinforce non-mechanical (or fluid) restrictions meaningfully. Soft tethers to power, such as social friction, or limits to racial advantages, really have to be played up to sink in.
(Viking Hat GM: It helps to grind them down until they squeal, next grind them some more until the crying stops and they cease resisting, and then ease up on the punishment. Explicit setting pain hurts. Once warned, don't choose it blithely.)
Quote from: Panjumanju;814119Railroading at character creation? Really, are you going to say that's a thing?
It's not that I only want humans - I just don't want humans to be the minority of the party. That's the problem.
A problem without solution if you aren't willing to dictate race, since one player's choice to play a non-human limits the remaining players' choice to human (once almost half the players have chosen non-humans) even if you haven't, or else you have to accept that you may get no humans. One player forcing a choice on another (e.g., "you can't play a thief because I'm a paladin") at character creation annoys me, even if it can't really be called railroading. If everyone ends up with an elf wizard, so be it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;814123Jesus Wept. God forbid the Special Snowflake may have to actually make up a character that makes sense within the setting.
GM = "You can't have a Dalek PC in Greyhawk."
Omega = "Stop railroading me!"
So making them non-existent as PCs is better than having a rare occurrence actually be rare via roll?
No. I am saying that not wanting non human races in the campaign and then likely tossing out a roll table thats heavily weighted to human because otherwise what the hell was the point in wanting a human-centric group when no one might get one?
Now if you say straight up. "Everyone rolls for random race". Eh. I might grumble. I might not. I an NOT a fan of totally randomized chargen. Its one of the resons I detest 4eD&D Gamma World. You choose your name, gender, starting weapon and armour. All else is randomized.
And if there arent any Daleks in D&D then why would someone be wanting to play one? Thats the players crazy not the DMs. The DM might work with the idea. But they could tell the would be Dalek to take a hike. Gary or whomever was DMing for Geezer could have just as likely said "NO" when he asked to play a Balrog.
As for omission vs roll off. In one case the GM is laying down that these things arent here. Like when the original players of Dragonlance were told "No clerics, No half-orcs, no halflings." Whereas tinkering up a weighted table says what? You are going to play a human and one of you "might" get something else because I dont want you to but dont want to say flat out no.
And so on.
Quote from: CRKrueger;814123Jesus Wept. God forbid the Special Snowflake may have to actually make up a character that makes sense within the setting.
GM = "You can't have a Dalek PC in Greyhawk."
Omega = "Stop railroading me!"
So making them non-existent as PCs is better than having a rare occurrence actually be rare via roll?
No. I am saying that not wanting non human races in the campaign and then likely tossing out a roll table thats heavily weighted to human because otherwise what the hell was the point in wanting a human-centric group when no one might get one?
Now if you say straight up. "Everyone rolls for random race". Eh. I might grumble. I might not. I an NOT a fan of totally randomized chargen. Its one of the resons I detest 4eD&D Gamma World. You choose your name, gender, starting weapon and armour. All else is randomized.
And if there arent any Daleks in D&D then why would someone be wanting to play one? Thats the players crazy not the DMs. The DM might work with the idea. But they could tell the would be Dalek to take a hike. Gary or whomever was DMing for Geezer could have just as likely said "NO" when he asked to play a Balrog.
As for omission vs roll off. In one case the GM is laying down that these things arent here. Like when the original players of Dragonlance were told "No clerics, No half-orcs, no halflings." Whereas tinkering up a weighted table says what? You are going to play a human and one of you "might" get something else because I dont want you to but dont want to say flat out no.
And so on.
As a thought experiment, try offering Men and one other kind of person as your races. In 0D, there are presumed to be dwarf and elf clerics, but you can't play one. Like, move dwarves and elves and whatever into NPC land, and just allow Men and hobbits. That would also solve the dark vision problem. Plus hobbits are capped at 4th level as fighters, so that's a real, immediate limit.
It's not draconian to really pare down the choices. This is part of the process of building an implied setting.
Quote from: Opaopajr;814138I actually do like how 5e has limited Darkvision. It is only 60' and gives Disadv on Perception (WIS) checks for sight. And from the core PHB races, everyone gets to hear... ;)
I would like to take this moment and this example to bitch about how some useful, some would say necessary, information is obfuscated in the rules text.
To know that those with darkvision get disadvantage on perception checks in total darkness, you can't just read the darkvision entry. Or just the dim light entry. Or just the lightly obscured entry. You have to read all three of them and tie them together.
You have to read that darkvision makes total darkness effectively dim light. Then you have read about dim light being a particular case of a lightly obscured area.
Then you have to read that lightly obscured areas impose disadvantage on perception checks.
Mention that shit right there in the darkvision entry, please.
¡Ai Caramba!
Quote from: Panjumanju;814062Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I think in the future I'm going to go with the suggestion that many of you have made of constructing a random human/demi-human table.
//Panjumanju
Yeah, no. Terrible idea. I prefer playing non-humans. If they are part of the setting and are playable races, I'll likely want to play one. This, dangling the possibility in front of my face while setting up the odds to frustrate me, would piss me off way more than simply saying "only humans".
Quote from: Panjumanju;814119Railroading at character creation? Really, are you going to say that's a thing?
Sure would feel like it to me, so - yes, it is now.
QuoteIt's not that I only want humans - I just don't want humans to be the minority of the party. That's the problem.
And that's going to create problems for the group. Anyone not getting to play what they want, who is watching someone else get to play the thing the didn't get, may well be jealous, frustrated, and angry. If you want to piss your players off, go right ahead.
You're the DM, you run the world, let the players run their characters.
Quote from: apparition13;814164...And that's going to create problems for the group. Anyone not getting to play what they want, who is watching someone else get to play the thing the didn't get, may well be jealous, frustrated, and angry. If you want to piss your players off, go right ahead.
You're the DM, you run the world, let the players run their characters.
You've raised some proper criticism of my preliminary plan, but I don't see you offering any solutions here, beyond "suck it". Can you be more productive than this? How would you solve this problem?
//Panjumanju
Several options have been lofted.
If you want no more than 2 nonhumans in the group, tell the group that. Let them work out who gets to be nonhuman if they REALLY want.
In the end, either the players will get on board with what you want, or they won't. But, again, I think it's a trap to try to set up the players to choose what they want you to choose, and get sucked into rigging the situations you want. Some people like that sort of thing, I find it prone to frustrating everyone.
And I'm not being mean or anything, it's a very natural trap that I suspect just about every GM succumbs to at some point.
Quote from: Panjumanju;814168You've raised some proper criticism of my preliminary plan, but I don't see you offering any solutions here, beyond "suck it". Can you be more productive than this? How would you solve this problem?
//Panjumanju
Why do you need more humans than non-humans?
Quote from: Panjumanju;814168You've raised some proper criticism of my preliminary plan, but I don't see you offering any solutions here, beyond "suck it". Can you be more productive than this? How would you solve this problem?
//Panjumanju
What is your usual ratio of humans to non in your party 3 to 1? Do any of the non-human players ever play humans? Do any of them have a sort of "go-to" race they play usually?
If they are just taking a race for the stats and bonuses then it is hard to say how much you might want to step in.
Personally I've told players before I want them to play a character, not a cluster of tricks with pointy ears. I really dislike telling players no they cant play a race. But I have if it drifts to the min-maxing because then I have to jump through hoops to challenge this cluster of tricks.
Here is an oooold idea from I think Dragon.
The idea was that the players start with access to only the basics. Human, possibly half-elf and half-orc, and the four basic classes. Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Macic User.
Then as they advance in levels they "unlock" access to more options for characters. More races, more classes. Earn the goodies as it were.
Would that possibly work with your group?
Quote from: Omega;814188What is your usual ratio of humans to non in your party 3 to 1? Do any of the non-human players ever play humans? Do any of them have a sort of "go-to" race they play usually?
None of them have a go-to race. They just consider humans 'boring'.
Quote from: Omega;814188If they are just taking a race for the stats and bonuses then it is hard to say how much you might want to step in.
I think it's genuinely for the interest of playing some strange race, which creates a problem when everyone is trying to play the strange outsider character.
Quote from: Omega;814188The idea was that the players start with access to only the basics. Human, possibly half-elf and half-orc, and the four basic classes. Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Macic User...Then as they advance in levels they "unlock" access to more options for characters. More races, more classes. Earn the goodies as it were...Would that possibly work with your group?
I'm not sure if that would work, but it made me think of trying something similar.
Perhaps this: When a character dies, and the player is making a new character, that character has to be *local*, drawing from the races and classes likely to be in the area where they are currently adventuring, rather than just throwing open the PHB to player whim. At this point they know what's in the area, so it wouldn't be a surprise to them what is available.
Has anyone tried something like that before?
//Panjumanju
So the real problem is that the game they want to play and the game you want to run don't match up. This is a very common thing.
I highly suggest not trying to, essentially, manipulate or maneuver or trick them, but simply talk it out.
You have several options. One is to compromise and give them some more of what they want, at the expense of what you want, and make it up in other ways. Another is for them to compromise and give you some more of what you want, at the expense of what they want, and make up for it in other ways.
I mean, they might be willing to play humans if you presented it differently. But when you say 'you can play a nonhuman' while wishing hard that they wouldn't, eeenh.
You might be able to get them to buy in by saying 'just try it for 8 sessions, and if you REALLY still hate it at that point, we'll try something else.' That runs the risk of souring the game, though.
Or just shrug and decide you guys just don't want to play the same game and go your separate ways.
It is very reasonable for you to state a humans only game.
Conversely you could simply accept that all demi humans in D&D are really different types or archetypes of humans, and so it doesn't really matter if they have pointy ears.
I have found Odyssey from Gnome Stew has some very good stuff about starting a campaign, and about agreeing the shared ideas about player characters and themes.
http://v.gd/GxHlxn
Quote from: Panjumanju;814216None of them have a go-to race. They just consider humans 'boring'.
Okay, make humans non-boring.
I have Nordics (Enduring / Athletic), Egypto-Phoencians (Learned / Magical), Islanders (Agile / Maritime), and Celts (Spiritual / Woodwise). I also have some "dwarves", evolved Neanderthals (Strong / Spiritual) and "changelings", people with fey blood (Magical / Alluring). (Cultural names are not actual, but rather illustrative.)
General population is 75% "human", 25% "dwarven", with a smattering of others. The table is at a 3:1:1 ratio.
Forcing race I think is a poor choice. In the PHB there are 7 races, I think? If you have a human majority, structure things so that 5 of your racial choices are "human", different, and interesting.
Quote from: Ladybird;813959"I want to run a game about humans, with demihumans as rare outsiders. So the only races available for this campaign are humans, and... that's it, actually."
You could probably reskin dwarves, elves, gnomes and half-orcs/elves/lings and maybe even tieflings as regional variants, but you're probably better off not, to prevent debate.
Stormbringer from Chaosium has always been a setting with almost no non humans, but significant differences in stats between regional humans.
The Pundit also uses the races/regions thing in Dark Albion.
Given that demihumans are really quite human, I like the regional variation idea.
Beyond Omega's clarifications, doing this by way of a random roll is bullshit: it's reducing the percentage without having to be one of those meany meanie GMs who actually says "No, this is what I want to have happen, and you need to design a character that meets the campaign's specifications." If I want a humanocentric (or an anything-centric) campaign, I'm both going to say so and enforce the paradigm.
I don't consider this "railroading" any more than I'd consider it "railroading" to tell the guy who wanted to play a Jedi Second-Stage Lensman in my WWII War In The Pacific campaign that his choice wasn't going to fly.
I just run regional demographics. Roll % on the demographics chart and you can play from that rarity on down. I also explicitly omit plenty of races in that demography.
(Party composition is another matter entirely, sometimes game-based, sometimes mission-based. Often I don't care. If you rolled it, enjoy.)
If you just have to play one race we can talk about it as GM & Player. However it does set up big, red flags in my head. I might say yes, I might say no. Give me a good argument why you feel you can do a good job roleplaying that rare, alien experience in my game. Essentially, can and will you contribute instead of disrupt my world.
I don't need any specific someone as a player. I may be sad upon your refusal to play at my table, but I won't take it personally and wither. I am an adult who can separate my pastime zeal from my social relationships. My door is open, my rules are clear, you are free to walk in and out as you please.
This whole sturm und drang about GMs having their own boundaries is weird to me. Don't like it? Walk. Please.
I feel like I've got half the board advising me to construct a random table, and the other half telling me that would be a 'railroading' dick move.
I wasn't expection such division of opinion.
//Panjumanju
Well, what is your problem? A desire for more players to play humans? A general groan of another motley crew ambling through the backwaters and expecting egalitarian bliss? Have regional representation for your PCs?
Define the problem, what sort of ideal you want to reach, and we can get you there. Part of it will likely "step on some toes." But you have to be willing to command your own table, and sometimes that means upfront restrictions and bans.
There's one person saying it's railroading.
The random table is provided as an option, but I think the consensus is 'be straight with your players and talk it out.'
Quote from: Panjumanju;814216None of them have a go-to race. They just consider humans 'boring'.
-
I think it's genuinely for the interest of playing some strange race, which creates a problem when everyone is trying to play the strange outsider character.
-
I'm not sure if that would work, but it made me think of trying something similar.
Perhaps this: When a character dies, and the player is making a new character, that character has to be *local*, drawing from the races and classes likely to be in the area where they are currently adventuring, rather than just throwing open the PHB to player whim. At this point they know what's in the area, so it wouldn't be a surprise to them what is available.
Has anyone tried something like that before?
//Panjumanju
1: That is fairly common and why I sometimes find "humans only! No aliens!" Sci-fi shows to be often very boring. The new BSG for example. Robots arent aliens especially when the humans made them. (The original was 95 percent no-aliens. But at least still had a few in there.)
Yet I most often play a human character.
2: Then dont make them strange outsider races. Say they are common as humans and no one even bats an eye at seeing one. That can sometimes make a difference in choice.
3: The system presented worked ok. You'll allways get someone who bitches that they want to play XYZ NOW. But either they walk or they give it a try. I found that it made playing the unlocked races emphasized that they were not as common.
4: That is very much like a variant on that one DM used. Think Dragon mentioned it too. It was that you started out simple, and unlocked new races and classes via exploration and discovery. Which was his prime method for also introducing new races players might later get to choose from. IE: We did not have access to any of the Spelljammer races, or spelljamming at all till about midpoint. And Spelljammer even advises to not allow access to the jamming races till the PCs get out there.
Quote from: Panjumanju;814284I feel like I've got half the board advising me to construct a random table, and the other half telling me that would be a 'railroading' dick move.
I wasn't expection such division of opinion.
//Panjumanju
Railroading was probably too strong a word. But I am dealing with a couple of family problems and my patience keeps wearing thin.
At 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." rather than just saying out front they dont want so-n-so. And as someone else pointed out. It does feel like a dick move by the DM when someone gets a non-human by dint of a roll on his tricked table and they are stuck otherwise.
Though in my case I'd tell the DM to take his table and fuck off. I want to play a human in his humancentric campaign and am NOT rolling just to end up with an Elf.
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. :D
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.
Quote from: Will;814383But 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.
Normally as a DM and a player I prefer a group of individuals rather than an organized unit as it were.
But asking the players to come up with a cohesive unit might be a way to go.
The only possible problem might be that one player will dominate the decision and essentially everyone else is an extension of him or her. Very very rare , but can happen. (least I hope its rare.) Then again that can happen in normal group chargen so proceed as you may.
To me it can feel a little... bland? You end up with the fighter, the cleric, the thief, and the wizard sort. Or they are all interchangable near faceless pieces of a unit.
But could also be interesting to play with the right group.
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.
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
Ahhh. Thanks for explaining it better.
Here is my take on it then.
Part of the problem is you are not reading the whole sentence in the drow example.
QuoteDrow adventurers are rare, and they may not exist in all worlds. Check with your DM to see if you can play a drow character.
The other problem is that all the PHB race descriptions are utterly useless fluff text because it is a mish-mash of various settings takes on each.
If the DMs setting doesnt include drow, or dragonborn, then it doesnt include them. Or the example in the DMG of replacing Halflings with talking mouse people. Explain it at the start so the players know.
The other track is to look at what the group ends up as and play up on that. Use it as plot hooks.
Say there are two Drow in the party. Why are they in the party? What are they doing both together and on the surface. What made them so different from the average? Or why are there two Warlocks in the group? THAT is really suspicious. Moreso if they are working for different powers.
Work with what you have rather than against.
Yet another track is to just not make the supposedly rare races rare. Dragonborn and drow both went from fairly uncommon, to kinda common. To pretty much everywhere from one iteration to the next. Drow havent been rare since AD&D. And even there not that rare if you use modules as a indicator.
Quote from: Opaopajr;814392Demographics 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.
And make sure to present it to the players up front that this is based on the
settings demographics youd like to work with. Rather than just because you want XYZ.
"There are no (or really few) clerics in this setting because the gods took them all away after a terrible event in the past. Roll 1-5 on percentile if want a chance to play one."
rather than
"There are no (or really few) clerics because you play too many clerics! Roll 1-5 on percentile if you want one suckers! nyah nyah nyah!"
Tone, reasoning and presentation.
My recommendation to use group character creation is sort of like recommending yoga: there's probably very little if any scientific proof that it's actually beneficial, but based on my players' and my experiences, it has been very, very useful.
This is how I did it recently:
Before planning a session zero, I told the players that we were using D&D and then asked them what they wanted to use as setting. They all wanted a quasi-historical world, not the bog-standard fantasy one.
So I told them that I was willing to run a few time periods and gave them a finite list. They voted on Ancient Greece.
At sesssion zero, with everyone at the table, I asked what sort of party they wanted. I stressed one thing only that was mandatory: they they all knew each other well and were willing to work together, even if they didn't like each other a lot. They chose to all be from the same village.
They were on-board with all being human, but that I'd be open to satyrs, centaurs and the like, by re-skinning existing races. They unanimously chose to be human.
I started with Attributes. I gave them the choice of any of the three options in the book (4d6 drop the lowest, pre-made spread or point buy), explaining the benefits and drawbacks of each (in my opinion, anyway). I was surprised how many chose rolling, even those who are usually vocally against that (once they saw how many of the others were doing it, they changed their minds).
Then I had them choose Backgrounds, and discuss their role in the village (and those of their families). We used some stuff from Beyond the Wall for this part, going around the table in a leisurely order.
Then they chose their classes. Some people were on the fence at first on which class to be, but once they saw what others picked, they were able to decide. That helped.
I mixed in a bit of world building into this as well. Things like what's around the village, what sorts of troubles that they'd had over the years. Since that part veers into Storygame territory, I'll skip that part because I know that sort of thing is frowned upon in these parts.
Needless to say, I got an entire package of campaign hooks and developed the surrounding terrain and world in one 3-4 hour session (along with character creation).
It was quite awesome and so far it has been a great campaign.
Let the players play what they want; adapt the game to them, not the other way around. Otherwise, be upfront that you want a humanocentric game and no one plays a demihuman. The whole "only one of you can play a demihuman" thing is just asking for resentments.
Quote from: Omega;814502And make sure to present it to the players up front that this is based on the settings demographics youd like to work with. Rather than just because you want XYZ.
"There are no (or really few) clerics in this setting because the gods took them all away after a terrible event in the past. Roll 1-5 on percentile if want a chance to play one."
rather than
"There are no (or really few) clerics because you play too many clerics! Roll 1-5 on percentile if you want one suckers! nyah nyah nyah!"
Tone, reasoning and presentation.
Not to wholly undermine your point, as I do agree presentation of setting is critical, but you can also have other reasons for limitation. Campaign scope, personal or group challenge, and so on can be reasons, too.
For example, you may want to focus your campaign upon the stories of wizards and their acolytes inside a wizard school/keep. Basically Ars Magica domestic drama. Lingering barbarians and sailors start to raise questions beyond a quest or two.
Another, perhaps you are testing out a house-rule mechanic and you want to see it in play enough to get a sense of its power. Or everyone is curious to see the hijinks of a party of Wild Magic Sorcerers. Single Class Challenge!
There are reasons for many things.
But it all keeps coming back to the same solution on how to present it. I don't think anything but the details has changed on our topic recommendations for that.
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.
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
Do you hand out a setting summary or just assume the "default" . A tight little setting inspires people to play characters in it and that automatically promotes the sort of PCs and games you want to run.
If you pitch a musketeer setting its going to be a very odd guy that asks to play an Orcish barbarian.
Quote from: Opaopajr;814531Not to wholly undermine your point, as I do agree presentation of setting is critical, but you can also have other reasons for limitation. Campaign scope, personal or group challenge, and so on can be reasons, too.
Very true. Wasnt the whole "No clerics" deal in the original Dragonlance campaign part of upping the challenge?
Group generation doesn't require tightly designed parties of complementary roles etc.
In my experience it's simply a high level 'ok, what kind of group is this? How do we know each other? Is a Paladin and Assassin really going to work together?'
Just basic stuff.
Because, frankly, the group is probably going to have to work this out at SOME point, and easier to do it when sheets haven't been written out.
I've seen more of that sort of "how did we get together?" and "I dont think an orc hating elf and a half-orc are exactly a good mix." more than the "one player tries to dominate the choices of the others." or worse, sorts.
Which is different, usually, from someone being the group leader. I get singled out for that often when I am the player.
Quote from: jibbajibba;814537Do you hand out a setting summary or just assume the "default" . A tight little setting inspires people to play characters in it and that automatically promotes the sort of PCs and games you want to run.
I do, I pitch it the week before character creation, then on the night of character creation pitch it again, and give everyone a one-page hand-out of the common, uncommon and rare races, classes and backgrounds. Please just played what interested them, which is fine, ultimately, but contrary to what I was after in the immediacy.
Quote from: Ravenswing;814482C'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.
Calm down, fellow, I'm just gathering information, here. There have been *more* than enough suggestions, but people adding things. Every time I've said 'thank you' it was because I'd expected that to be it.
//Panjumanju
Explain to the player that they are taking an uncommon or problematic race and that they are accepting ALL the possible hassles of that.
This was how our DM first explained it to Jannet and her first half-orc. She accepted that and had a blast with every misfortune that half-orc ran into.
Or her playing the halfling in our swamp campaign. Promptly eaten by a giant frog because she was the only small target. Roll new character Jan...
Or someone playing a drow. Constant disadvantage while in sunlight. Not a big deal if the campaign is mostly dungeon delves. But its going to be a hassle if the play is mostly wilderness travel and daytime encounters.
Its interesting, I set up the Albion campaign to be only-human as far as player characters were concerned (and really, all other intelligent races are basically hostile to humanity).
Then I turned that around in my DCC campaign and made it that humans are quite rare in that setting, they're an endangered species. There have been human PCs because there are certain areas of the (vast) game world where they still thrive (sort of, its pretty clear that even in the areas where there are still significant human populations things are not going well), but other races (including a wide variety of mutants) are much more common.
The current 5th Ed game I'm in started with "Humans only, no spellcasters except Druids"; the reason being, we're playing native peoples being invaded by Euro/American medieval forces.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;813948On a serious note, I prefer to play humans actually. The variant racial bonus (get a free feat) pretty much makes humans my default PC unless there's something unusual that I want to try out (like my halfling battlemaster fighter)
Agreed. Humans are the Glorious PC Master Race of tabletop gaming. ...though I suppose that should be phrased as "the PC is the Glorious Human Master Race of electronic gaming," to reflect chronology.
Whatever. Point being, humans > ALL. :D
Re: the OP - I'm a big fan of group chargen for exactly this reason; it gets everyone on the same page and gives the DM a chance to oversee the whole thing, talking things out and nipping potential problems in the bud right from the start. If that isn't feasible for your group, you're just going to have to take control of your table and lay down the law as others have said (though perhaps be a tad more diplomatic about it than my phrasing might suggest).
Maybe its because I'm coming from Tolkien, but the standard "demihuman" races all are pretty much human to me, albeit accentuating one aspect of humanity metaphorically.
OTOH, I despise the very concept of half orcs, which do not exist in my games.