Player Options: Strict Recipe or Kitchen Sink?

Right now, the most popular roleplaying game in D&D 5e, and so this question is somewhat with that experience in mind, but not limited to it. It is not uncommon nowadays to have parties of ooze-people standing beside lion-men who fight beside magma-folk. Personally, I find situations like this pull me from the immersion. I much prefer games (both as a player and a GM) that have more narrow focuses on themes and vibes, which includes player options.

When you are a GM, do you prefer to limit the options players can choose from, or allow them the whole world? Does your opinion change based on the game? If you prefer limitations, how tight do you keep them.

When you are a player, how do you feel about games with limited options? Do you turn your nose up at tight settings? Jump in with both feet? Again, does this change depending on the game?

As a player (I don’t GM), I prefer tighter options and settings. I tend to go in for traditional settings, races, and classes. Even if I play outside that paradigm, I still tend to filter the game (I imagine those non-traditional races and classes as traditional ones lol). But each their own.

As a player depends how limited the options are. I like to at least have options from core rules. No options make me feel claustrophobic and like I’m missing some crayons. If more than the core options are allowed then everyone should have access / books.

Depends on the setting. My homebrew, Jenneria, does not have drow. Ergo, you cannot play one. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. I offer plenty of choices for species, but drow are not among them. If it is something within the established lore of the setting, then fine, go for it. Just be aware that if you choose to play a race that is monstrous or seen as evil, people are going to treat you as such until they get to know you. In the Forgotten Realms, if you want to play a centaur, that's fine. They exist in that setting. You will have problems with doorways and dungeons, but if you are willing to live with that, then so am I. In Jenneria, I have a species of elf that is extremely xenophobic and does not associate with anyone not of their own kind. But if you want to play one and are willing to stay in character, then fine. I wish you luck.

You also don't get to play an ancestry or race from the sourcebook that just came out two weeks ago, and I haven't acquired it yet. And don't come at me demanding homebrewed stuff or something that you got from whosyourdaddy.com? Ask me about it. I will look it over, and if I feel that it is balanced, it will be permitted. If not, then you are expected to abide by that decision.

I normally play and run games with collaborative world building to some degree, and so if a player says "I want to play X", my response is "Great! How do we incorporate X into the setting?" It's all fiction at the end of the day; what options are and aren't common in the setting is up to us as a group.

Granted, I don't run games where different races and species get different stat bonuses. But even when I ran 5E, I had a house rule where you could reflavor the existing races to be whatever you want. Even ran a game where all the PCs were monsters from the wild getting revenge on polluting industry. Tons of fun, would run again.

All that said, even my most permissive games have some limits. All I can think of are about ensuring everybody's having fun, and that no one's having fun at the expense of others. Making sure the party's cohesive by limiting jerkish characters. Having each character be practical for the tasks expected of them. Giving each character a reason to be part of the party, and giving them all the means to communicate. That kind of thing. For 5E, that typically means no evil alignments or equivalent, that everybody can speak Common or another universal language, etc. The basic stuff.

I love variety and options but think each setting should have some form of structure. Any regular area would likely have a couple large nations and possibly multiple smaller ones and race and possibly even class options can be tailored to match. Now if you are in some major crossroads where it is natural for a wider variety then sure, open it up to all options. But that should be the exception, not the norm.

Ex : in a VTT game I am in the GM wanted to do something different so opened it up to monstrous races. But the kingdome is humans. So the only way we could work and use the markets was to sign on as some of the nations "knights". This allows us access to normal things our characters might otherwise have trouble getting to but there is the constant threat of the nations high wizard and other knight watching us.

Well, in my Pathfinder 1e homebrew, I have a plethora of species options. I permit the classics (dwarf, elf, half-elf, hinfolk (halfling), gnome, human, or half-orc), in addition to gearforged, lizardfolk, orc, gnoll, kobold, bugbear, goblin, felinian (catfolk), sylph, oread, undine, and ifrit. I also allow the 70-some species from The Noble Wild. Furthermore, I permit players to customize their races by taking alternate racial abilities, so the possibilities are quite extensive.

As a player
Personally I like to build a character that supports the stories narrative. I would rather have some constraints like cave dwellers only (dwarfs, orcks, rock gnomes ect) than the kitchen sink knows as the forgotten realms. I actually find there is an unreasonable amount of playable rases in that setting.

As a GM
I try to ask: Is there an ecological place for that rase in this setting? My gold standart is the Eberron setting, with ~10 playable rases, with a ecological and lore wise home for every race.

I resently ran a new daggerheart setting, where every rase was allowed. Next time I visit that setting, there will be rases that is off the allowed list. Eg I coun not personally find a place for a musroome people, but I player wanted to play one, so I went with it.

As a player, I like to play things I didn't try yet, so it can get pretty weird, but it doesn't bother me much if there are restrictions on character creation. This is mostly because, as a GM, I think it's totally up the the vibe of the game. If I run a regular pre-made D&D campaign, I couldn't care less if I have an awakened cleric sponge next to a barbarian mushroom rescuing a bard slime from its failed attempt to seduce the queen of dwarf whale people. It's generally just fluff and doesn't really matter to the story or the setting. But I am going for a specific feeling or setting, then restrictions follow that choice. I ran a orcs-only game once for example. You wanted to play, you'd play an orc. No other race was allowed. It the internal consistency that matter in that case.

As a forever GM I prefer to run a rational setting where everything makes logical sense. So, player choice is limited to what is plausible in the setting and if the player chooses something that is implausible or irrational for my setting then I simply apply the appropriate consequences.

@Didz Could you provide an example? I'm curious :)

"Ack, a demon! Run it from the town, or burn in the square," cries out the frightened milkmaid as ZENOBIUS THE FRIGHTFUL (Level 1 Tiefling Warlock) walks into Pleasantville, Humanland, looking for a glass of milk.

I think it comes down to the group sitting at the table, more than my own preference. These are all games, and if someone wants to play something that looks like it's outside the scope of what I had in mind, I'll probably try and find a way to say "yes." Do I really want to take away from someone else's experience because I have an idea I'm not willing to budge on? I don't want to be that person. Is it fair and justifiable to say no? Sure, but is it worth it? Debatable.

My larger issue of why I would say "no" stems from the fact that I don't want to have to keep track of more than is necessary—extra ancestries/races/species/whatever generally mean extra supplements. Once we start adding additional books, the game becomes more cumbersome to run. "Less is more" is almost always a preferable maxim for gaming resources. If I can run a game with only the core book, then I'll do that.