Sometimes, you want to run an all-human D&D-type fantasy setting

it doesn't matter how different elves are, when people hear elves they will think of their headcanon and they will be familiar to them. They will instincti8vely connect them to the other elves even if they have little to do with eachother.

>merfolk
>furbait

And if the "wood elf" archetype has already been offloaded to another woodsy race?

And if the "pointy ears and no other remarkable features" appearance is already taken up by another race?

>And if the "pointy ears and no other remarkable features" appearance is already taken up by another race?
why the fuck would you create an elf copy and call them something else? If the race is not an elf copy then it doesn't make sense to say their spot is taken by this other elves.Also i am not advocating for including elves in your setting i don't care, just weanted to explain that thing i explained.

It's up to the DM which races are available to as PCs. If the players don't like it, then the group needs to play a different game or a different setting. There's nothing wrong with creating your own races and discarding what is 'standard' for fantasy.

I've been fortunate to never have players that are too picky with what they want to play - but I've never been too restrictive.

i have one player who REALY wants to play dwarves.
I actually let him despite me originally not having dwarves in the setting.

Its pretty much the only thing he wanted to out of the character so i basically made them swiss jews who were not that important for the setting and he was happy.

But generaly i think people who REALY want to play one race tend to be not in theElves-dwarves-gnomes spectrum but rather something more specific.

I myself am quite adamant on playing a reptillian race whenever possible, which i never do because im the DM so it doesnt create a problem.
I just include them as bad guys as a little nod to that.

"Furry" apply to merfolk and lizardfolk too. You know it, I know it, being the cliche "but no fur lol!" retard doesn't make your fetish less fetishist.

And I'm not against furries. I'm against retards.

Just let that player be a midget, like Tyrion.

My closest gaming friend is really into Tolkien. He wouldn't enjoy these as much, so we run Tolkien.

I can't imagine this is all that common, to be honest. In roughly two decades of running D&D I think I've come across only one person who simply couldn't abide by not playing their favourite race (he wanted to be a dwarf), though I guess I could have forgotten someone.

Most players react pretty well to seeing that the setting you're putting before them is different from the norm. People like seeing new things.

I think he just wants to post these pictures like an avatafag.

>"Furry" apply to merfolk

Don't be retarded. Most merfolk in modern fantasy are just blue humans with gills. You may as well call fauns or tieflings furry because they have horns and odd skin.

A race is only 'furry' if it is a fetishized species of anthropomorphic animals, complete with snouts, beaks, etc.

man, furries keep trying to claim monstergirls despite everyone telling them they're retarded.

"heterosexual" apply to traps too. You know it, I know it, being the cliche "but the dick lol!" retard doesn't make your fetish less fetishist.

And i'm not against trap lovers. I'm against retards.

One of the groups I ran for balked at no nonhumans due to a desire for mechanical variance from race. They want that +2 to strength for their fighter, the innate racial abilities, etc. That sort of balking vanished when I pointed out that Fantasy Craft has various mechanical options for humans based on personal aptitude, letting them take the package they wanted. Fighter took the Strong human package, Rogue took the Acrobatic one, etc. With that handled, they adapted quickly to choosing nation and culture of origin instead of focusing on species.

I like their line of reasoning because it makes the monstergirl fags unreasonably angry.

Generally I draw the line at snouts/muzzles. If it doesn't have that, it's PROBABLY okay.

>I wanna be a warforged.
This isn't eberron, there are no warforged
>Yeah but... I wanna be one.
Why.
>Because it's in the book and it looked cool and...
You're minmaxing for str and con for your fighter you fucking faggot

what do you mean "okay"

so any race that doesnt have a humanoid face is shit to you?

So i dont know fucking dragon humanoids with wings and a human face are fine while normal DnD gnolls are not acceptable?

so if he wanted to be a warforged necromancer it would be ok?

>My setting

Obligatory "write a novel" comment.

But seriously, don't do that. RPGs are a collaborative effort. Have your players work with you, not against you, even in setting creation.

This

im a DM and surei ofthen think of the setting as "my character" opposed to the PCs, but if your idea of the game is too different from that of the PCs then you wont have a good expirience.

My players sadly have a very standard outlook on fantasy, they dont want anachronisms so when i tried to basically make a Nausicaa like setting it didnt work, so i let them play some more traditional roles and gave them some more normal enemies to fight and only gradually introduce them to stuff like gunpowder weapons and whatnot.

If you let your players take part in the world building they are more invested in the game and wont fuck around as much.

>pic
jesus fuck, that's some fucking misshapen feet

>Obligatory "write a novel" comment.

I think they already were writing a novel judging by this :

>You wanted to play in the setting I use for my writing, this is the setting, you've read what I have of my works...

This sounds like they have been writing stories, and the players wanted to be in that setting.

I want you to read this post out loud, very slowly.

Have you tried reflavoring nonhuman races as humans? He could be a stocky human with low-light vision, poison resilience, and proficiency in axes, hammers, and artisan's tools. Dragonborn could be dragon-blessed humans. Warforged could be humans with magic nanomachines or augmentations or something. All of this might still not fit in your setting, but it's something I've never seen Veeky Forums consider.

Yeah there's nothing wrong with this. Every now and then, you and your players want different things, and no one should be "forced" to accommodate.

>GM: I'm tired of tropes X, Y and Z
>Player: can I include Y?
>GM: Please don't
>some anons on Veeky Forums: WOW WHAT A DICK HE SHOULD WRITE A NOVEL
Just accept that *sometimes* things don't work out WITHOUT someone being "at fault" or "in the wrong", damn it.

One of my friends simply doesn't comprehend why you would want to play a human in a fantasy game where the point "isn't to be yourself", and simultaneously is so deeply embedded in the whole tolkienesque thing that he just can't wrap his head around other nonstandard or unique races. I feel like it is a common issue, but he's the most vocal example I can think of.

This is not what happened here tho. Here was more like

>You will play this
>Can I play X?
>Fuck u the game is mine reeee

Don't forget the scenario where you want to run a campaign with no humans at all.

More often then not it's like this in my experience
>Forever GM
>New game time
>"We want something different than standard fantasy stuff!"
>"How about this idea?"
>"Ok"
>Several weeks of planning later
>"Wow how come I can't play the same elf ranger again?"

I dunno, you seem to think he overreacted based on little more than the extremely vague, implied tone in his greentext. Not to mention you're twisting the facts in a really dishonest way: user didn't force a setting on his players. user explicitly states that the players requested his setting.
Additionally, I don't think the conversation writer-user had with his players went exactly like this, but even if it did, it wouldn't be THAT bad in my opinion. Only confused and slightly bothered.

Even if you were right and he'd called them triple niggers while sperging out about how HE writes the setting and all that jazz, he would still be in the right, if in substance rather than form.
Because GMs who do not want to alter their setting to provide the maximum amount of fun are not in the wrong (and players who would like the setting to change are not in the wrong either). It's a perfectly reasonable desire, they don't have some kind of utilitarian moral obligation to do otherwise.

>Even if you were right and he'd called them triple niggers while sperging out about how HE writes the setting and all that jazz, he would still be in the right, if in substance rather than form.
Because GMs who do not want to alter their setting to provide the maximum amount of fun are not in the wrong (and players who would like the setting to change are not in the wrong either). It's a perfectly reasonable desire, they don't have some kind of utilitarian moral obligation to do otherwise.

A lot of words, but the point is that yes, this model is valid, but as anons replied here, it's not the only one nor necessarily the better.

thats the worst possible combination roleplaying stereotypes i can even think of.

So he ONLY wants people to play elves and dwarves? No humans and no interresting races?

Sometimes you just want an elf girl to sit on your face while affectionately calling you a primative human even as she squirms and moans.

I also
want this but with drow girl butthole

>>You wanted to play in the setting I use for my writing, this is the setting, you've read what I have of my works,
Why do I get the distinct impression that your players didn't actually want to play in your setting nor did they actually read any of your shitty novel? Why do I feel as if you told them some dumb shit like "my setting is like Game of Thrones meets Conan" and they said "cool" and then you pulled the "no nonhumans" card?

Regardless, keep your fanfiction to yourself, fag.

Two separate races here.

>And if the "wood elf" archetype has already been offloaded to another woodsy race?
This is race A.

>And if the "pointy ears and no other remarkable features" appearance is already taken up by another race?
This is race B.

...

Remember it's not gay if it's an elf.

Yeah i wouldn't worry about that

If you're just taking DnD and removing all the fantasy races I'd say you're going to end up with a more boring game. If you're playing some other game that doesn't normally have elves and shit in it, I have no idea why your players would assume that it does.

What about doing a different bunch of fantasy races.

I guess that can work. Would you be taking the racial abilities and modifiers from existing races, and applying them to something that has different fluff,or just making a complete new set of homebrew races?

Shit DM, would nor play with.

Fuck off you entitled fuck.
It's not enough that the DM does all the goddamn work of running the game.
Now you want setting control.
That's metagaming.
You don't get to choose where you come from.
You don't get to choose your parents.
You get to choose your actions.
A DM who takes away your agency is bad.
But a DM is well within his rights to not have X race and Y race in his setting.
Or are you saying the DM should not be allowed to have some of what he wants, and he is just a servant of the players?
You already get to pick from 11 (eleven) classes and seven (7) races in D&D, at least in 3rd edition. I think there are even more in fifth, I think there are twelve (?) core classes with warlock.
Tell me, you entitled millennial fuck, have you played ALL of those classes yet?
No.
So why do you need more?
Pathfinder is even worse about this.
Ran a game for first-time Pathfinder players who had only previously played 4e.
Six players.
Only one chose a PHB class.
Only one chose a PHB race.
They were not the same person.
Stop diluting setting identity with freakshow races you use to either (1) minmax or (2) make yourself special when you're fucking not special at all.

>Mariya shirt
flawless

So you're self hating?

Shit player, would not DM for.
Seems like we've met an agreement.
Have fun looking for a game on roll20!
I'm sure this time you will somehow beat out the 100 other applicants for a spot in some shitty railroaded game in the DM's donut steel OC setting.

Jokes on you, I DM 75% of the time. Also,
>roll20
What's it like not having any friends?

You could just use the game's other available races instead of falling back on elves and dwarves.

Veeky Forums makes this sort of situation look like it is far more plentiful and troublesome than it actually is. Most cases, it's just "this is a low magic setting, try to make human characters". If someone throws a tantrum because they want to play a dwarf, or the GM reacts to the first guy by throwing a fit at him, those are signals that you shouldn't stay with that group

That said, I think a GM is at least justified in making these demands since he's the one doing most of the legwork for the game

I almost feel like there's some mass conspiracy to gain acceptance outside of their internet ghettos by lumping themselves in with the monstergirl fags. More likely that it makes great bait though

>Monster girls aren't furries!
>I-If you say they are, you're just a furry trying to steal my waifu

SHIT HE KNOWS

I am talking about you, user.
I forever DM as well.
Not on roll20, playing online is shit.
But I will see fatguys whine about a bad DM that won't let them play their snowflake race.
Then go into the gamefinder threads and whine about how they can't find anyone to DM for their entitled pampered millennial ass.
They should all be put in a gas chamber imho.

embarrassing virgin behavior.

here's your (You)

>my writing
dropped

that image got me good, user.
I just started listening to Brian Eno recently after hearing this youtube.com/watch?v=CAxXahq-nZg and I'm tempted to start using his music in campaigns.

Finally have a chance to ask this after I saw one of these last time.

How often do you have to call bullshit when dms/gms heavily restrict what you can have or be at the beginning of the game but end up bringing the stuff banned in anyways?

One of the other dms in our group always starts his games the same way. He has a "setting document", which tells us about the history and current state of the world in less than a page. He explicitly calls for human, non caster classes(he only runs 3.5) and also bans monk and barbarian. He will he tell us about our home village/town and not much else.

We make characters, plan some backstory or anything to bring life to them. We get there and he rejects any backstory, from farmer to craftsman and makes us all orphans raised by the town and disliked by them. Our first encounter always has a mage enemy. Two games in we are fighting evil non humans, like drow,orcs or goblins. More than three games in and we are met by tolkien like elves and are told of ancient dwarven civilizations. Then someone dies and comes in as a godling or elf magic user.

Basically, when is it appropriate to lose interest in or call shenanigans on a game when the dm only restricted things to use them against you later on?

>non caster classes(he only runs 3.5) and also bans monk and barbarian

that just leaves...fighter and rogue only? Sounds like shit

Barbarian ban was recent, as of two games ago.

He relented a little this time before I took a six month break because I got pissed. He allowed arcane casters and banned monk, barb and divine casters. We got 5 sessions in and then sprang the news that magic was dying in his game, mages were stuck at 3rd and lower spell in the same game he attacked our sixth level party with 6th level spells.

I am wondering where other groups draw the line because I have caught flak from "destroying" his campaign because he springs this shit on us and I challenge it.

they're scaleys, actually
but really, mermaids are just part of the standard set of things you can find attractive, it's been that way for thousands of years

then what's the called "elves", since that's what that guy was talking about?

>RPGs are a collaborative effort.
Collaborative as in DM makes coherent setting then players function as actual people in it. Too many people trying to worldbuild their own fantasies into it and it struggles to retain coherence. Why would you even want to worldbuild in the setting you're playing in? You lose the whole fun of exploration and discovery if you built half of what you're looking at anyway.

>roll 6s
>rolled a 6
you win sausage, I guess

They don't exist because they got their archetypes and appearances split up.

I have a player who has very particular tastes. He only likes humans. He doesn't "get" playing anything else. He plays either very generic heroic types, but prefers edgy spike-mounted-pauldrons types. You think he'd gravitate towards Orcs, undead, Tieflings, etc, but just wants to be the human. He's not a very good roleplayer, and has trouble keeping from just playing himself, except when he's playing a catoonishly evil villain. Oh, and he only plays "warrior" types.

I blame our schools and WoW for this.

Your mom doesn't count

could be legitimate autism, or even sociopathy
more likely he's just a shallow unimaginative cunt though

THAT THING GOTS A PENIS DOESN'T IT!?

Has anyone tried this? How did it go?

danbooru.donmai.us/posts/2247262
danbooru.donmai.us/posts/2247258

>DFC grows 2 cup sizes after the bra comes off.

Lame.

>those fucking feet

>could be legitimate autism, or even sociopathy
It couldn't really be sociopathy, since that hasn't been a legitimate diagnosis since the 40s.

I would be really pissed. He clearly either has no idea what he's doing and just rejects stuff on a whim, or even worse, he's lying and potentially wasting your time, which is much more likely.

If you still want to play with him, I would get upfront about it. "Look, we've played a few of your campaigns, and you keep vetoing our ideas after you say we can do whatever we want. You also have certain patterns in the setting and rules. Would you mind making those clear to us beforehand?"

I feel sorry for you. That is not even remotely ok, I'd stop playing with him.

he sounds like a fag, leave immediately

First, I'm the DM.
Second, I don't play D&D.
Third, I receive no enjoyment from having the players dance like little monkeys in the masterpiece I created in my nightly wanking sessions. That's not what I game for. I play games with my friends, I don't inflict my ego on them.

Git gud. It's not 1989 anymore.

>Made my setting have only humans of various cultures
>Players still want to play elves and dwarves
>End up replacing some of the humans with elves and dwarves and left their cultures and names unchanged

Still not gonna allow gnomes, halflings, halforcs or dragonborn.

Veeky Forums thinks an all human setting is shit. More proof that Veeky Forums is full of underage edge lords and weebs.

Would've been better with a penis

All human setting is good for some games, for fantasy - yeah it's shit, because it would mean that somehow humans survived against races just as smart and numerous while lacking physical advantage.

or , or get this
there where no other races to begin with
a world with a single dominant race makes a lot more sense if you're doing low fantasy

>Eleves never leave the woods
>Dwarfs never leave there mountain
>orcs are to busy shitting all over them selfs
>halfings and gnomes are faggots
>Most monsters are rare or unorganized
>Dragons are not intelligent
>humans take over

>Muh low fantasy

I wish GoT would go and stay go.

Most moder day fantasy makes LOTR look low fantasy

But how often do people really play very different settings? If you're almost always playing some variation on D&D or Shadowrun, elves are pretty much always an option - and even if elves in the settings aren't generally like traditional elves, a player could have their character just be aloof, haughty and elfy as their personality even if it's not a setting-wide rule. I don't care how strange you make your setting, if someone makes an idea for a character they'll try and either compromise or jam it in edgeways.

The setting is 90% the DMs domain. It's what he plays, and he lays out the framework for everyone else to fit in. The "collaborative effort" has to respect that. If you don't like the setting, don't play the game.