"Sorry, but there's no Orcs in this world"

>Is "it doesn't fit my worldbuilding" an acceptable reason for a GM to restrict core content in a home game?

Yes.

>but is it okay to let that restrict core classes too?

Yes.

>What if a GM, for example, decided that there were to be no divine casters because there are no gods, or the gods of a world are dead?

Perfectly acceptable

>Is there a theoretical point, in your opinion, where putting your worldbuilding first starts to gut the system you're playing and you should consider using a different ruleset?

When you start changing how the crunch works in a fundamental level (XP gains, how hits are handled, etc.)

This. All pnp games are rulesets used to help tell a story. Add or subtract house rules as you see fit to fit your needs. Maybe the gm didn't realize he was going to exclude orcs from the get go. I don't always have my ideas fully fleshed out when I pitch them to my friends.

>Is "it doesn't fit my worldbuilding" an acceptable reason for a GM to restrict core content in a home game?
Yes, no context needed. GM does the work, he can restrict whatever he wants. The game was made by people who aren't going to run a single game for you. If you don't like something, you can say so. If they are adamant, you can choose not to play.

And I did read the context, and I stand by the above. The player calling the decision arbitrary is being disrespectful to the work the GM put into planning. Worrying about what content is in the core book vs expansion material is ridiculous. The delineation is arbitrary.

OP here. I'm looking for a more leveled conversation than I'm interested in fishing for replies.

I think we all conceptually understand what a homebrew setting is: what I'm asking is specifically if there's a point where a problem with game quality arises from bending the ruleset of a game around the setting you've created (as opposed to the inverse of creating a setting that's meant to be compatible with the rules, which one could make a good argument many of the published D&D settings do: see Eberron introducing the Dragonborn once they became a core D&D class)

Regardless of how well a game system is balanced in practice, the rules of a system are presumably balanced around the assumption that all of these systems are in play. While I don't really object to the notion of not being able to play a half-orc if half-orcs not existing is pre-established during the setup for the game (Dragonlance doesn't have orcs, and its been around since second edition), I am wondering a bit if restricting something like classes based on worldbuilding might pose a risk of imbalancing the game in some significant way, and by extent if setting is an acceptable reason for causing that sort of imbalance.

I haven't really made my mind up on that question, which is why I'm interested in hearing Veeky Forums weigh in on it.

This is perfectly acceptable, provided the DM says what content is not allowed prior to chargen, otherwise these problems result. Prior notification simply cuts out these errors.

*core D&D race

>XP gains
Oh come on, everyone just gives the entire party a level up when it fits

To expand on this a bit: there's nothing that prevents a GM from using the D&D core rule system to run an ASoIaF inspired humans-only, no-caster game based around kingdom building and courtly intrigue, but a good argument could be made that it's not the right system for running that sort of game. They would probably be better off running something like Burning Wheel, or probably just the ASoIaF roleplaying system itself.

I don't actually think there's a problem with letting worldbuilding drive your race options, since most home games are expected to have their own pantheons and races and other things that diverge from the PHB. What I am asking is whether or not there's a point where the similar principle as above applies to other aspects of changing a game that might come about from the GM bending a system around a setting - is there a point where cutting classes, or races, or items, etc. changes the identity of the game you're playing so much as to constitute asking if pulling out Savage World, GURPS, or another more versatile generic RPG is more practical to realizing the GM's vision for their game's world?

Not him, but I'm stealing this now.

You seem to be looking for some hard-set 'tipping point' where removing rules breaks the game.
For D&D specifically, this is a complicated answer. How many subsystems can you remove before it's no longer D&D ?
Let's look to the OSR movement for an answer, which turns out to be 'you can remove most of it'. It won't be the modern conception of D&D, but D&D has been many things across it's history.

A campaign is a dialogue between player and GM. A good GM can build off of anything a player wants to do that isn't something flat-out stupid or inappropriate for the setting. If their worldbuilding can't handle orcs, their adventure probably isn't much fun.

>A campaign is a dialogue between player and GM. A good GM can build off of anything a player wants to do that isn't something flat-out stupid or inappropriate for the setting. If their worldbuilding can't handle catgirl prostitutes, their adventure probably isn't much fun.

There is no point in fetishizing rule balance over the creativity of the GM. It's the GM's world and as long as he doesn't switch horses halfway through a campaign he's perfectly in the right to disallow elements of the core game up front. He's putting in the effort to create a homebrew world, to prep and run the game and to organize all the fun for the players, and that bestows some privileges. Like disallowing certain rules, races, magic items, spells or whatever else.

>Is "it doesn't fit my worldbuilding" an acceptable reason for a GM to restrict core content in a home game?
yes

>Is "it doesn't fit my worldbuilding" an acceptable reason for a GM to restrict core content in a home game?

Why in the ever loving fuck wouldn't it be? If they want something so bad they can run their own fucking game.

In many cases, including this one, it is entirely fine. But it can go too far. I remember one story of a GM who didn't allow Monks because his setting didn't contain any monasteries where they could learn and train, completely disregarding the numerous backgrounds a Monk could have that don't involve such a thing.

>What if a GM, for example, decided that there were to be no divine casters because there are no gods, or the gods of a world are dead?

Hi, I'm a GM who has actually done this. All the gods are dead. No divine spellcasting, only Spheres.

The shitter can GM himself if he's not satisfied.
GMs have full control over the setting and system they want to run, that's literally what it means ot be a GM. Of course he can restrict the core game if he so desire, but he should be open to discussion with players about this sort of stuff.

If you take an option out of the pool, nothing bad happens to the game balance-wise. If you take a whole role out of the pool (like divine spellcasting or arcane spellcasting), things are different.

While I understand what you mean, I believe you're quite overthinking it.
Crunch-wise, removing half-orcs won't make the game any more unbalanced or deprive you of any meaningful and irreplaceable asset. There's no inherent quality in half-orcs whose absence can't be compensated by other races or could possibly cripple your party. They make for good melee characters, but you can go just as good with humans, dwarves and whatever monstrous races you have (you mentioned them in your first post).
Similarly, warlocks are just another flavour of spellcasters. It's not like they're the only class that can heal, buff, disable or do crowd control. Removing them won't change the balance of the game, it's just another class that does the exact same things as other classes but in a somewhat different way.
Hyperbolically, you could even have a game that is as restrictive as "Only halflings and no spellcasters allowed"; your GM just has to be careful to tune some encounters accordingly (for example, no situations that can't be resolved without magic, and dungeons designed considering that the party can't use magical healing).

In other words, a decent RPG is not a game where you can't """"""win"""""" if you don't have all the options available.

As has been pointed out, the DM is absolutely allowed to bend it as he sees fit. If we wants to run a human only, martial only game with zero fantasy creatures, he can.

Now, tou and your friend need to decide if you WANT to play that.

When I hear homebrew, I'm immediately on gaurd because it can go bad fast. In my experience, big changes tend to follow big egos and a "don't fuck with my story" attitude. HOWEVER, I've been proven wrong enough that I still give them benefit of the doubt.

>Is "it doesn't fit my worldbuilding" an acceptable reason for a GM to restrict core content in a home game?

The GM is adapting the lore given to you by the system to a way that he will fit what he want to do better and its NOT your place to judge or complain tyler you fucking nigger you're just a fucking player shut the fuck up and do as I say

>Is "it doesn't fit my worldbuilding" an acceptable reason for a GM to restrict core content in a home game?
Yes.

>What if a GM, for example, decided that there were to be no divine casters because there are no gods, or the gods of a world are dead?
That's completely fine.

>Is there a theoretical point, in your opinion, where putting your worldbuilding first starts to gut the system you're playing and you should consider using a different ruleset?
Probably, but things like restricting classes and races aren't enough to gut the system.

The only problem here is the GM didn't bother to ell the player what was restricted until after the character was created. You need to let them know up front if the core book's going to have stuff taken out.

>XP gains
whats an xp?
seriously though i've never played with a group that actually bothered with xp besides when using systems that outright demand it (fucking mekton zeta, goddamn)

There is this generally weird notion on Veeky Forums I keep seeing that people are convinced a DM has to go out of his way to accommodate the players even if it comes to something like setting & races while the Players dont have to do jackshit.

I mean, if I am running the game for guys wouldn't it be nice if you also accommodate me a bit on the other hand? Like it is a two-way-street at least?
Why is it that the world is ending whenever the DM says "no" yet at the same time we have tons onf threads about thatguys where the DM is encouraged to say "no."

It honestly really depends how much you take out. If you remove all divine-based magic, for instance, it could make dealing with undead more difficult because you don't have any holy damage.

Removing major things can have those sorts of consequences.

But a PC race isn't that big of a deal. Everybody can play human and it works fine, extra races just add different flavours to an otherwise baseline of statistics and abilities.

Orcs are stupid anyways and only nerds play half-orc.

>Is "it doesn't fit my worldbuilding" an acceptable reason for a GM to restrict core content in a home game?
Yes.

/thread

This, you kind of have to warn in advance when core content is being removed or reworked.
He also offered no alternate race to make the player's character fit in.

Gnomes are shit and have no place in any world

>inappropriate for the setting
>If their worldbuilding can't handle orcs their adventure probably isn't much fun

How much of a faggot are you? You first say that its fine to disallow things based on the setting then go on to say if orcs aren't in their campaign sucks.

If you're too much of a whinny bitch to not be able handle no orcs, then I shudder to think how much of a nigger you would be about other rules.

Faggot.

I had a player argue with me that because the Pathfinder Advanced Race Guide said that "Tengu can be found in any city," that literally every city in my campaign world was full of bird-men just milling about. He didn't even want to play them, he just wanted to have bird-people roosting everywhere. I ruled that due to the nature of the game we were playing, that they in fact were not everywhere. Had he wanted to play the race, or had an interesting backstory for it, I would have tried to squeeze it in and make it work, but he argued it for an hour, so I said no.

Make a map, make a setting, write out encounters, deities, towns, cities- an entire world for them to explore. Players get hung up on not being able to be a faggot paladin or be a gnome or halfling. They literally just rock up with a sheet with stats on it, GM has to rock up with a binder, books and notebook to tell and create a story. the saltiness of a forever GM.

World building DMs are usually full of themselves and have stupid schlocky ideas. If I had to sit down to DnD and the DM yammered on about whatever arbitrary magical realm they invented before hand, it would be a really hard sell to get me invested in the game at all. It's like an elevator pitch. Are we playing medieval chivalry or pulpy action or renaissance swashbucklers or what, and if so, do I get a vote or am I just along for the ride? I don't want to have some sloppy pretend fanfiction shoved down my throat, in the same way the DM doesn't want his precious lore ruined by non-canon PC ideas. It's a compromise.

>Also it seems kind of ridiculous to me why he would remove something core without adding in something that's mechanically basically the same thing.
Why? Why would having not an barbarian race be so absurd?

Depending on the system, there might come a point where it will seriously affect the usual balance of the game. For instance, if divine magic is the only decent source of healing in the system, a no-gods setting is going to play very differently than the system normally does. In that case, the changes should be made quite explicit up front so the players know what they're getting into.

Really, any changes to the usual default should be specified up front, but it's a bit more forgivable if it's stuff that's less fundamental to typical play.

But at the end of the day, as long as it's communicated properly, absolutely it's fine to restrict core options based on setting. Not every setting needs to be your generic fantasy kitchen sink, and ones with some restrictions are often more engaging and memorable simply for the fact that they have some serious thought put into them.

Meanwhile, GMs who don't do world building tend to be full of nothing at all and have no ideas whatsoever. World building is a part of being a GM - even if you play in a pre-established setting, the GM probably will come up with locations, characters and organisations of his own. World building can also be a big part of the fun of GMing, and the fun of the GM is, obviously, every bit as important as the fun of the players. There have to be compromises, sure, but these compromises start when the gam starts, not before. The GM can't and shouldn't control the actions of the PCs, and has to deal with them doing things he didn't plan for and changing the setting in some ways, whether small or large. The GM can involve the players in the world building phase and accommodate their wishes, but going "this is the kind of campaign I'm going to run, and this is the setting" is also acceptable.