The Central Casting books are excellent GM resources. I highly recommend them.

The "deviant sexuality" section is page or two, easily ignored in an otherwise top notch book line.

I prefer to run humanocentric OD&D, but people love their elves and dwarves.

As a GM, I set the chargen rules for the campaign. If that causes some players to not play, that's cool. I ran a 4e campaign that only used the PHB2 and PHB3 because I'd played enough with the PHB1. Not that I "hated" the PHB1, just that I wanted to experiment with a setting built from the other books. The result was awesome and we had a great time.

I'd totally run that campaign again.

I've been playing around with converting my Gamma Mars campaign to the GW rules for 4e. If I do it, there will certain chargen parameters and houserules and everybody will be cool with it, or not play. And that's great!

In general, the "I only play XYZ" players are not worth keeping around.

Quote from: mightybrain;1100817The introduction to the 5th edition Player's Handbook is fairly clear:


I've played in a 3rd edition game that was limited to human only player characters. The world still had orcs and so on, but you weren't allowed to play as them. And it didn't seem any less D&D for it.

BX D&D had no half orcs, half elves or gnomes. Gnomes were though a monster race. But far as could ever tell half elves and half orcs just didnt exist in BX D&D.

Dont recall what BECMI allowed initially, but later it tossed open the gates and had a fun little series of books introducing various new PC races.

Keep in mind though that in O and to a lesser degree AD&D players could play any monster race if they wanted and the DM allowed. One of the original OD&D players played a Balrog at one point for fun, and another became a vampire. Probably lots more I have not heard of.

As noted in other threads. AD&D Conan has no demihuman races. Its just humans as PCs.

If the DM is clear up front in the first one or two paragraphs of his campaign sales pitch, which races and classes are on the table for PCs; I am totally OK with that.  However; I am a big fan of the Core 4, or the Core 4 + 1 (whatever).  I will play a Core 4 PC; or else a Sorcerer, or Bard.

I don't personally want Barbarians, because they just seem to be a Fighter variant.  I like Sorcerers, but they cheapen Wizards; imho.  Bards seem interesting.  Druid is probably the class I struggle most to embrace.  Hell, I find the Monk easier to accept than Druids; because of wild shape....

Quote from: Razor 007;1100840I don't personally want Barbarians, because they just seem to be a Fighter variant.

OK, so why not just think of them that way while using the mechanics given?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1100841OK, so why not just think of them that way while using the mechanics given?

D12 hit die, and Rage.

Quote from: Razor 007;1100842D12 hit die, and Rage.

As opposed to Action Surge, Second Wind, Heavy Armor proficiency, and a Fighting Style? It's a variant approach to being a weapon-user in a world where 75% (or more) of PC classes use some kind of magic, so that barbarian and fighter have a lot more in common with each other than they do with almost anything else.

In games with many classes and many races, I like tailoring options for the campaign setting. If my setting is a Stone Age fantasy, the chargen options will be different than a Steampunk fantasy. I did a short savage ice age fantasy campaign for 4e where the PCs were human, half elf or half orc and the classes were barbarian, druid, ranger and sorcerer. The half-races represented cursed bloodlines where the half-breeds were both honored and outcast.

That campaign wouldn't have worked if the players controlled the chargen choices.

Quote from: Chris24601;1100819Thats pretty much it as far as the PHB is concerned with race and, near as I've been able to search, the DMG doesn't bring up restricting the races at all.

Right from the DMG, first chapter:

"As you start to develop your campaign, you'll need to fill in the players on the basics. For easy distribution, compile essential information into a campaign handout. Such a handout typically includes the following material: Any restrictions or new options for character creation, such as new or prohibited races."

Quote from: Spinachcat;1100828In general, the "I only play XYZ" players are not worth keeping around.

Yes.  I'm fine with players that always play an elf when an elf is available.  Everyone has their preferences.  But if they can't come up with a good character in whatever campaign we've planned (and whatever restrictions that implies), then they probably won't play a good character even with having their own choices.

I think the schizophrenic language in 5E about what is "included" is a legacy of 3E/4E, organized play, and the reactions against all of those.  They are trying to have it both ways with wishy-washy language instead of just saying something like:  "Look, organized play needs some defaults.  Some groups have no idea what is going on, and need a place to start.  The books we publish are going to assume those same defaults.  However, the GM can run anything they want, with or without consultation with the players.  If you've got a GM you like, try a game with some restrictions and see how it goes."  

It's not rocket science.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1100854Yes.  I'm fine with players that always play an elf when an elf is available.  Everyone has their preferences.  But if they can't come up with a good character in whatever campaign we've planned (and whatever restrictions that implies), then they probably won't play a good character even with having their own choices.

I think the schizophrenic language in 5E about what is "included" is a legacy of 3E/4E, organized play, and the reactions against all of those.  They are trying to have it both ways with wishy-washy language instead of just saying something like:  "Look, organized play needs some defaults.  Some groups have no idea what is going on, and need a place to start.  The books we publish are going to assume those same defaults.  However, the GM can run anything they want, with or without consultation with the players.  If you've got a GM you like, try a game with some restrictions and see how it goes."  

It's not rocket science.

Mearls literally said that. Almost word for word.

And as I pointed out, restricting races is part of the core game. It's just, mysteriously, everyone in this thread missed it. Almost like they never looked

Quote from: Mistwell;1100852Right from the DMG, first chapter:

"As you start to develop your campaign, you'll need to fill in the players on the basics. For easy distribution, compile essential information into a campaign handout. Such a handout typically includes the following material: Any restrictions or new options for character creation, such as new or prohibited races."

SJWs will probably just prohibit straight white males...

P: I was thinking of playing a dragonborn
GM: Hetero?
P: Sure
GM: what color dragon?
P: u I dunno.... white?
GM: DeNIED!

Quote from: shivaa95;1100863Why do they ristrict races ? what's the point ?

Because you need to play Humans the way that Tolkien intended.

Quote from: shivaa95;1100863Why do they ristrict races ? what's the point ?

To tailor your campaign to a particular setting.

FOR ME, I like everything goes / kitchen sink for settings like Planescape and Spelljammer, but my Ravenloft is humans only with limited class choices. When I build a setting / campaign from scratch, I restrict chargen to emphasize what's new and different about this campaign. AKA, if the campaign is about Dwarves vs. Elves, the PCs aren't going to be a mixed race group. If arcane magic is actually a virus spreading evil in this world, then the PCs aren't going to be wizards, bards or sorcerers. As my players enjoy my tailored settings, I don't have an issue with how I limit chargen. I don't know if that's an issue out in the wider hobby, especially as I doubt the Twitter garbage actually play much.

However, the goal of Organized Play is to sell more books, thus an expanding kitchen sink works for their goal.