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.

Apologies for the huge delay in replying. I don't visit this forum very often these days.

(Trying to think of a good example that isn't stupidly obvious and is setting specific.)

The Rational Explanation For Magic in my setting is that magical manifestations and effects are the result of psychic signals being interpreted by an alien energy which has contaminated the world through a rift in inter-dimensional space between 'The Viod' and 'Material Space'.

So, to cast a spell a character that is atuned to the Aethyric Energy around them merely needs to focus their mind of something they want to happen. (Note: 1 in 1,000 human babies are born atuned to the Aethyr, so it's not a choice it's more of a curse.) The aethyric energy will absorb the psychic signal and interpet it as best it can to manifest what it thinks the characters wants. Consequently, mental disciplne and concentration in the casting of spells is essential. Untrained magic users frequently create lethal chaos particularly if they haven't realised that they are doing it, and many young humans die and kill others accidentally because they wished for something without realising the fact that it would be made manifest by their atunement. There is an element of the classic 'Three wishes' scenario about the situation where the Genie in the bottle delivers a literal interpretation of his masters wish resulting in disaster.

But getting to the piont. Because this is the rational for how magic works in my setting, there are number of things that simply won't work in my game that probably would work in other games.

For Example:

There is absolutely no piont is gagging a wizard. Because he doesn't need to speak to cast a spell.

Binding a wizards hands doesn't stop him casting a spell.

Being tied up and gagged etc. might make it harder to cast a spell, but only if the wizard has been trained to use gestures,words and ingredients to help him concentrate. But it wont stop him trying.

Casting a spell requires mental communication between the caster and the Aethyr. Therefore, a spell cannot be cast if the wizard is in an area that is deviod of aethyric energy, or if the wizard is distracted, unconscious, or simply focussed on something else.

That's just one of a number of rational interpretations of the way things work in my game setting. There are loads more which I record on World Anvil as part of my world 'WFRP Fragile Alliances'. They are what I class as 'Meta-Physic's' meaning that these are universal rules that govern how my world works. As opposed to 'Fluff' which is how the characters in the game think the world works.

e.g. 'You may think that the world is flat, but it will still remain stubbornly spherical.'

Fluff & Metaphysic's - an explanation of how it works in WFRP Fragile Alliances.

Heh, for a given value of 'rational'.

Whenever I see a "5e" anywhere, I click ignore. Because I don't want to deal with constant cliches and low-brow attitudes that always accompany that ridiculous system designed for the lowest of the low — the average consumers. No self-respecting role-player would touch that, but alas self-respect is a rare quality in 2026.

That being said, I will now answer the OP question. I don't really mind an odd fellow being in the party, but I usually make a quota for that. One odd creature. Not six odd creatures. Of course, I always have my own definition of odd, but you can expect that all animal lovers would get a ban, as well as any androids in a fantasy setting. I might let a single dhampir or kitsune in a PF1e game. I will easily let six tieflings in.

When I run a game in my own setting, however, I will only allow characters appropriate to my setting. If someone wants to be special — they don't need a gimmick race for it — they can simply roleplay better.

While I'm not the target audience for that game line, and only tried playing it twice (one of those during fifth edition), I'm impressed that this was sufficient to taint me so bad that now I'm being told I am not a self-respecting role-player. And apparently many others around here.

@S.F. Message from the mod team:

A kind reminder to please keep the conversation in all Forums respectful and to try avoid inflammatory wording.
Users are allowed to dislike games, but insulting directly or indirectly people who may like those games is not allowed here.

Please see point 4 of the General Guidelines for the Forums.

Thank you for your understanding, happy gaming!