Some of you may know that I have banned the following from my 5E games with the support of the players (they do not like them either)
Monks (wrong genre)
Drow/Tielfings (to emo)
Dragonborn (to silly)
And one can throw the Eberron PDF and Kender onto that list tas well.
In my Airships and Boobies thread however I expressed interest in Eberron type magitech and adding guns from the DMG into the game and maybe even a crashed space ship a'la Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.
I am not a big fan of anything goes goes espicially after playing 3.5/Pathfinder. Locally if I had a game store and organised play (PFS, AL) I would be interested in the core only Pathfinder Society game over the anything goes option. The reason for this I want to keep the craziness down and avoid parties like a few I saw posted online on the 4E bards where I lurked. Basically there is a tendency to optiomise your characters a bit to much. Or in 4E terms.
1. Pick a race that boosts your primary.
2. Pick a race that boosts your secondary
3. Pick a race which an interesting racial power.
I also allow no evil PCs in my game for a variety of reasons the main one being in almost every case I have allowed PCs into the game who are evil the player has been more interested in doing whatever they wanted and disrupting everyone else than in actually role playing an evil PC.
For the most part I like a D&D game mirroring a 5th century AD game through to the 16th or 17th century maybe with abit of bleed over so a 16th century game with pirates may have equipment avaialble to RL 18th century ships such as cannons.
I do know however that some people like that type of stuff and even some of my own players. ANd for that reaosn I offer a themed game. For the most part I did this more back in 2E as oppopsed to 3E. If I am running a themed game something I do not usually like is allowed such as a Drow game you cna be a Dark Elf or other race that makes sense for an Underdark Drow game. I would not allow a surface elf into such a game for obvious reasons. Even if that PC can disguise themselves like a tiefling or Dragonborn in a normal D&D game the game usually starts to revolve around that special twink PC where the other players know about it maybe even in game but they are supposed to go along with it.
My themed games are there to allow PCs to blow off steam. Some settings such as Darksun that are also far from default D&D games also count as a theme as well.
Themed games I have run in 3E
Evil
Drow
Darksun
Pirates
2E Themed Games
Darksun
Drow
Spelljammer
Magocracy (everyone must be a wizard)
Thieves Guild (everyone must be thieves)
A themed game I have wanted to run for years is based off the 2E Barbarians Handbook and Combat and tactics is a stone age game where the PCs might come across another culture with superior arms and equipment. Guns Germs and Steel D&D style where at best you might have a culture with an Aztec or Inca level of technology (maybe not the same culture) and the Orcs might have steel weapons and armor. That mneans PCs might have disadvantage to hit when encounting steel armor and they are using stone clubs.
Lack of options seems to be a dirty word these days but there is usually a reason for it even if it is as simple as "I do not like it". If a player has a different opinion I have always been quick to point out they can DM a game and I will quite happily go with whatever they decide. One of my players ran a game recently where Paladins have to be LN and NPC ones could be LE, in my current game the Paladins alignment options were LG. It even says I can do that in the DMG.
So my recent post about using elements of Magitech and guns it was more to represent lost technology from the past/Atlantis/visitors from Spelljammer than to duplicate Eberron. In such a game Warforged for example would be fine, in my current game I do not allow warforged and I would not allow them on Darksun either. Monks are fine in Spelljammer and Oriental Advenures I usually do not allow them in a default game. I stared with BECMI/2E and do not like the Monk class full stop just a personal PoV. If I ran a OA type game it would be more based on Imperial China rather than bad 1970's style Kung Fu TV shows and Bruce Lee movies.
Not everyone likes to play in the default DnD setting.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
I can see where your coming from on this one. I've never really warmed to the dragonborn race, or cat folk from pathfinder as player races. I could sit at your table using the situations above - as long as you don't let the next guy powergame me out of the picture 
but I see where your coming from, I am from the BECMI generation when I started playing in the mid 80s.
strider13x wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I do quite like Dragonborn myself, but I mostly feel them (and Tieflings) are just a little too monsterous in appearance for some settings I want to use (in others they'd be fine).
... So rather than ban them, I start with the idea that Dragonborn start off appearing human, and develop draconic characteristics as they level up.
Same with tieflings.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
EdwinSu-
Of course, setting dictates which races are available. My 'world' has exsisted for 20 years of RPGing and is more Greyhawk than Forgotten Realms so that's why they aren't a fit. Light on magic, planar travel only appeared recently. I'm torn now between opening the world to those extreme races or creating new world with the new DMG recommendations...
To OP:
I've always enjoyed playing in and running themed games. Back in the seventies and into the eighties, my players would inevitably try their own themed parties and/or types of adventuring milieu -- all within the same game world (occasionally with slight alterations between campaigns). However, unlike you and your group, I have yet to actually ban anything! Rather, I have always adapted whatever the players wanted to fit the theme. I've also never played in a game where any available player option has been explicitly banned. I guess I've led a sheltered life!
Edit: Oh, crap! I just remembered one time I was not allowed to play a halfling druid who was into bestiality. But that DM was a prude, so I ended up playing a Mesopotamian-styled fistfighting monk (from Dragon #50).
-DS
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
Dragonborn are of course born of the horrid effects dragons have on lands around them, the same reason Spawn of Tiamat are formed. Worshippers of Tiamat would love you to believe that these are created, and while they certainly can be, they also naturally form as the world itself rejects the presence of a dragon
Also if you want to ban monks I'm banning Wizards for wrong genre as well, cause yeah, I've said it once and I've said it again, D&D wizards do not resemble fantasy wizards. Sorcerers, however, will remain acceptable.
I think now that we have all these trolls in this thread we should have a massive BBQ. All these so called old school players bitching about dragonborn, when the original dragonborn(draconians) have been there since 1st edition. Cat people have been in DnD since mystara. Im not saying you have to have these things in your campaigns, Im saying you are wrong to say these things are not DnD. And Zard after hearing how your groups play, I dont think you have the right to call anything silly or wrong.
It is hard to imagine a 'world' (or setting) supporting more than one sentient humanoid race. Earth only has one. True, there's tons of ethnicites and cultures (and most of them hate each other).
So, once you realize you're playing a totally illogical fantasy game, anything the players want is what the DM should facilitate for them.
I just go with the setting when I DM, no pixie samurai in Dark Sun, but in my ongoing Planescape campaign of 10 years, you can be pretty much anything you want.
Shasarak wrote:
Most Dm's have a idea for what they want their campaign to be like, to be based on.
They express these ideas to players who they think might be interested and hopefully gather enough like minded individuals to form a group.
The OP has the right to allow whatever races/classes they deem fit and he will find likeminded players to suit his needs.but in honestly i stopped reading his inital post
here: [quote]
Monks (wrong genre)
Drow/Tielfings (to emo)
Dragonborn (to silly) [/.quote]
Because the reasons given for these are something I would expect from a 12 year old
But as I stated it is his right.
PS
Kzinti are cool
Zardnaar wrote:
...and now I want to see Tortles statted up in 5E. 
As far as banning races for campaign reasons, the only race I've ever banned is human -- true story! I wanted them to be the half-legendary precursor race from which the dwarves, elves, halflings, boggies, and knockers descended. Sadly the campaign never really got legs -- too much Real LIfe intrusion.
I like dragonborn. I like to play dragonborn. I like to DM with dragonborn PC's. I often have dragonborn kingdoms/empires playing pivotal roles in my campaign worlds.
Does that mean I am youthful again? Yay! 
This again? I don't see why anyone should care what Zardnaar bans in his game. On the other hand I don't get why he seems so keen to bring it up all the time.
kalil wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Please, lets not start the dragonborn shouldn't have breasts arguments again! The whole reptile and born from an egg argument was painful the first time!
Hey! I just said "sexy". By that I ofc mean "an interesting and attractive personality"!
kalil wrote:
Personally, I never saw the point of banning a race or class. If players don't like something, they simply won't play it. I don't see the point in limiting the possibilites of what someone can bring to a game. This is a game of imagination, after all. So if a player wants to be an exotic race or a class that doesn't see much play, they can have at it. It may bring something unexpected and fun to the game. I'm more interested in a player being able to play what they want and having fun at the table than setting up some kind of list of banned things. That's not to say that banning something is a "wrong" way to play or anything. If everyone in the group doesn't want something in a game there isn't much point in putting it in.
Not to mention that D&D isn't a game for slavishing recreating existing works of medieval fantasy. It's a fantasy inspired game so that we can create whatever we want. If you want to re-create a certain fantasy book in RPG form, you probably can find a game dedicated to it, like the Lord of the Rings RPG, A Song of Fire and Ice (for GOT fans), or something similar. Saying a race race or class is "silly" or "emo" just strikes me as bad role playing. Who says a tiefling or drow has to be "emo"? Who says dragonborn are silly? Especially in a game where a giant cube of Jell-O can dissolve you. A game is as silly as you make it.
So at our zero session, my group discusses campaign ideas, characters they want to play, and so on. We then craft the game we want to play with all the tools available to us. I don't like putting limits on this kind of stuff. My groups are imaginative and sometimes crazy people, but our games are never "silly".
...you're just sayin' that cuz you got a dragonborn avatar!
AlHazred wrote:
manduck wrote:
manduck wrote:
CCS wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Huh. Maybe we have different definitions of "silly" then. I dunno. But you may be using it wrong.
CCS wrote:
I'm a big fan of "themed" games and, as such, I appreciate what you're going for.
One thing a former GM did that I really liked was to allow players to pick whatever race they wanted mechanically, but "Lore" wise, they were human. So, if you used the Goliath stats, you'd just be a big human. Halfing? Small human. This allowed players to still use character ideas they had come up with before and still fit within his game world. It worked out mostly well (none us us tried to be Half-Dragon Vampire Template whatevers or anything.)
Just an idea to consider.
Shasarak wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
This thread is convincing me to pause my main game and get the players doing a pirate session. A downright dirty bucaneer scum episode to let my players be over the top greedy, evil looters.
Maybe with airships and boobies.
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
celondon wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
CCS wrote:
CCS wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
cbwjm wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
We banned Tiefling and Dragonborn from our Ravenloft game. I am surprised everything but Human was not banned. I think the decision really fit the setting. The demihumans allowed really have to pass themselves off as human or else suffer the xenophobic consequences, which can mean perfectly good people mistaking them for demons and doing what they have to do protect their community and family from demons. Good people with kill elves, dwarves, and halflings by mistaking the for supernaturally evil creatures.
cbwjm wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Wasn't Dalamar refered to once as a "Drow" in one of the original books? I could have swore he was at one point.
cbwjm wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Synjin wrote:
We haven't "banned" any class or race persay, however, we have changed them. In our game a monk is a divine priest who uses alchemy. A drow is a black elf, an elf whose ancestors saw the light of the "stars" and said "Eff this, there are others more worthy of my worship." For tieflings we use a modified random demon generator (see Dragon #13) if descended from demons, burned angel appearance if descended from devils, and a unwholesome unsavory appearance if decended from the NE beings.
No one has ever wanted to play a warforged or dragonborn to date.
I agree with Zard. I love dragonborns (draconians) and drows. As enemies I get to kill!!! I don't normally ban monks but I revolavor them to something western. And yes, Europe had its martial arts. They just didn't have Bruce Lee to make them popular.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
durntaur wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
cbwjm wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
TBH, when I first start a campaign, I get a little annoyed if PCs want to play anything but humans. Half-humans (-elves, -orcs, tieflings) are kinda OK, but IME when people pick a nonhuman race without knowing the world, they either end up RPing as humans with funny hats, or they bring their expectations of other worlds into yours in a way that may not fit (e.g. compare orcs in Warhammer, LotR, and Warcraft or FR halflings / Athasian halflings / kender).
Generally if a player is incredibly invested in something I'm happy to budge, and as the campaign ages I think a second or third character being more exotic is fine, but not so much with something new.
Mephi1234 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I was DMing a solo campaign for my buddy's drow fighter/mage/thief, he used disguise/makeup to get by, until when in Zakhara (Al-Qadim), he was dining in an Al-Badian's tent and wiped his hands on the lining of the tent (as is custom)...
arnwolf666 wrote:
Wasn't Friar Tuck basically just a monk who used the quaterstaff all the time to fight with?
Knight_Marshal wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
cbwjm wrote:
Gatt wrote:
I think that this is once again proof that you should keep the novels seperate from the game world. Hell I kinda feel that any non weis/hickman novels are noncanon as they ussually spit in the face of the orininal books. Even weis and hickmans later books are pretty bad too be honest.
moonbeast wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
A query: how would you feel at a table if warforged were the result of a mistake made when a golem was being created? In effect a sentient golem that is self aware and can make choices rather than an uncontrolled "mad" golem.
draegn wrote: