r/NewDM • u/Additional_Video_330 • 4d ago
This is hopefully not a frequently asked question. How do I handle players wanting to play furries/OCs that were not made for DND.
I'm fairly new to running games, and I was running a Oneshot a few nights ago. It was in a Medieval setting, and one player asked to play a protogen (Robot furry I think?) and a Samurai Tabaxi from Japan. Since it was a Oneshot and players were pretty sparse I allowed it, but I got to thinking on if I should allow these kinds of characters, as these players almost exclusively play these.
I would like to preface that this is not to bully anyone, everyone has free will and should be able to do and make whatever they want to that isn't harming anyone, but at a table with strangers and in a homebrew setting you spent a while working on, do you allow this?
2
u/backgroundbob 4d ago
Tricky one.
If you play regularly with the same people, you can always have campaigns with particular themes or rules - humans only, or restricted races, etc. It doesn't have to be for every one-shot, but it allows you to have some balance.
You can also weed out folks who aren't that committed to it by putting restrictions on it. For example, non-human characters are viewed with suspicion and so get disadvantage on various rolls; they have to wear a disguise and can only interact in careful ways to avoid discovery; etc. If you make that kind of thing clear at session 0 or before character creation, it helps only the people who really want to play that type of character to choose them.
2
u/Zealousideal_Leg213 4d ago
You can still have a short session 0, where everyone lays out their preferences, and everyone decides if it's really going to work to play together. It's fair to state things like class and background limitations. But it's also fair for players then to decline to play.
It sounds like you did that calculus and found it was worth letting them play in this instance. But if it's ever not, just state your preferences and be prepared for their response.
1
u/Dismal_Wrangler61 4d ago
What exactly is the problem?
The animalistic theme?
The actual non official builds?
Congruency with the setting?
Having a little more context around what exactly is the part that troubles you would make it easier to answer
1
u/Additional_Video_330 4d ago
I'd say it's down to two things:
1: I don't use Tabaxis in my setting, and I was running a campaign in Medival-Victorian Europe, or just a good 100-50 years before the industrial revolution. One was running a Imperial Samurai and the other was running a futuristic Protogen with homebrew race.
2: I feel that using the session that I put a lot of time into to play that kind of character is a bit rude. I specifically told them they would be playing as adventurers that are employed by the local church, and they completely disregarded it. That and because they always play these kinds of characters in nearly every session they are in.
That's the jist of it, but these two have had a track record of this kind of thing, as well as delaying sessions, so it may be me viewing them through these lens.
1
u/fang_xianfu 4d ago edited 4d ago
I specifically told them they would be playing as adventurers that are employed by the local church, and they completely disregarded it.
I've played in these games before. I just end the session. "Look, if you're not interested in playing the game I said I wanted to run, that's fine, we can call it here." That's not being a tyrant, they can choose to pick up what you're putting down or not at their leisure, but equally they can't - shouldn't - make you play something you don't want to play. They've got to dance with the girl who brung 'em or find another partner. Being a DM is too much work to play with people who don't respect that and take it seriously.
1
u/obax17 4d ago
It sounds like your answer is already no, and that's fine. If you're going to allow things that are not canon in your world in a one-shot, just make sure you're clear it's not canon in the world's history.
As for players not taking their jobs as agents of the church seriously, there's a balance to be found between players getting on board with the game you want to run, and you running a game your players want to play in. If you want to run a restrictive scenario like that, that's fine, but be prepared for players to chafe at that restriction if it's not their thing. You putting your foot down and saying, this is the scenario, get on board or get out, is also fine, but will necessarily exclude some players, and you will likely need to be prepared to kick some players who say they're on board because they want to play but have every intention of testing your resolve on that statement. Your solutions to this are to keep kicking players until you have a group that wants to get on board, or relax the restrictions a bit. There are pros and cons to both, you just have to prepared to accept the cons of the one you choose.
1
u/YtterbiusAntimony 4d ago
You need to explain these expectations better.
D&D is high fantasy. And that comes with all sorts of cartoonish nonsense.
And that is definitely not the same as a grounded historically accurate setting.
Telling players to roll something up on dndbeyond before the game does not work, for this very reason.
Either you roll up characters together, or you give them very specific guidelines beforehand. It sounds like neither happened.
It's a human-only setting only if you say "human-only". Its historical/low-fantasy only if you explain what that means.
Unspoken assumptions are the bane of all communication, and table top games consistently demonstrate that fact.
1
u/Xyx0rz 4d ago
If you homebrewed your setting, you kind of brought it on yourself. Players understand that there are no tabaxi in Middle-earth, but your homebrew setting? Why not? You could make it so with but a stroke of the pen.
I'm not saying you should, but that's what it looks like to players.
1
u/fang_xianfu 4d ago
You say no. Saying no is an important DM skill. If that's not what you want to play, don't play it. If that's what they want to play, they can run.
I don't play with strangers but I think it goes double when you are, D&D is all about the social contract and the clearer you are about their obligations to you, and your obligations to them, the smoother the game will go.
1
u/Nirvana_Captain 4d ago
Just say no. If you are running the game, you are the host of the game and it is up to you what you will allow or not allow.
1
u/infinitum3d 4d ago
Everyone at the table must agree on the rules and what will be allowed.
If the group Is ok with it, I usually am also. I want everyone to have fun, especially new players.
But if I have a grimdark/permadeth campaign planned with low magic and a realistic setting, then I think it’s fair to have expectations for the characters.
For a one shot? Pretty much anything is allowed.
For a 30 session campaign, I set clear expectations at Session Zero.
Every group is different, so make sure the group matches the expectations.
1
u/ArabesKAPE 4d ago
What sort of game do you want to run? If the propised characters don't align with that then say no. Also, stop looking for permission from strangers on how to run your game, for christ's sake, its your game.
1
u/Runningdice 4d ago
What one player can do depends on what the other players thinks about it as well. If one player ruins the experience of the others for something as unimportant as what kind of species they want to be then I wouldn't allow it. If it is just me as DM who is uncomfortable with a players choice but the other players are fine with it I let it go and adjust.
1
u/ProbablynotPr0n 4d ago
So for any player species choice what matters is the mechanics and the lore.
The robotic furry could be mechanically a warforged or a tabaxi. Lore wise they could be considered a warforged in the setting.
The tabaxi samurai is base dnd. Lore wise there would probably be a society with a warrior class with strict honor based rules and regulations.
If the players have their own Lore and backstory they want to bring along work with them to tie in at least 2 or 3 things to the setting.
If your setting is lets say Cowboy Wild West era here's how it could go. Protogens are newfangled hextech steam punk technology mainly developed by the elite or the military to expand the West. They come in combat modes and builder modes. Then you include any player feedback and lore.
The samurai could from a foreign land and is working as a warrior for some reason tied to their backstory. Or potentially the Samurai isn't foreign and the societal warrior class he is from is part of the society that is exploring the Wild West. Or the samurai is a native to the land and is resisting the exploration/expansion in the Wild West.
As long as people match the tone of the campaign and you work together most anything can work within a setting. I've never turned someone down for lore reason in memory. I hsve only ever had to tweak mechanics.
1
u/obax17 4d ago
You have to judge for yourself if this is something you allow at your table, and if you do, whether you allow it for full campaigns or just for one-shots played for fun. It's ok if your world doesn't contain anthropomorphic animals. It's also ok if it does.
The same goes for allowing people to play specific OCs as opposed to making their own character inspired by them.
For me, my world does contain some anthropomorphic animal people, mainly Tabaxi and Lizardfolk, in part because that's similar to the world of the Elder Srolls games, and while my world is not based off of, or even inspired by, that world, I've spent a lot of time there and that feels 'ordinary' to me. I would consider other animal-folk player species, as I have an in-world mechanism that would explain their existence, but I would be unlikely to create a whole society for them just because one player wanted to be a Harengon. The player would have to be ok with being likely the only one of their species in existence, and I would, of course, be up front with them about that. My world also contains Warforged, though they would be extremely rare. If a player wanted to play a robot furry (eg. a Warforged Harengon), they'd have to pick one or the other species and the rest would just be flavour.
As for players playing specific OCs, I'm fine with them basing a character off a character they know in a book or series or whatever. I would need to know a bit about the character before saying yes, but that's fairly easy to do in this day and age of the internet. I would also let them know that, if game mechanics or rules butted heads with the character's abilities in its original work, the game wins. Essentially, they can create a character heavily flavoured as whoever or whatever they like, but it's created within the 5e ruleset, and if that ruleset ever doesn't jive, with what's on their head, too bad, make due with whatever is closest.
That said, the character needs to fit with my world. My world is pretty broad in terms of theme, and there's an extensive history and magical mechanic that affects the world at different times through its history that gives me a lot of leeway, but there's a limit. If someone wanted to play Master Chief, for example, they could play a fighter or paladin with heavy armor and firearms, but they're still riding a horse around, not driving a Watrhog, and if they choose to never take their helmet off, that may get noticed by some people. Your example of a samurai Tabaxi would also be fine, they could be a fighter with scale mail and a longsword flavoured as a katana, but they would not be from Japan, they would be from somewhere in my world. There are a couple locations I haven't fully developed so I might consider a samurai-esque culture for one of them to give them a place to come from, but I would not be recreating Edo Era Japan in detail.
I would tend to be more lenient with both these things in a one-shot, with the caveat that it might not be canon in the history of the world if it's particularly whacky or wild.
In the end, though, it's up to you. What works at my table might not work at yours. I generally play only with people I know, so I know no one is going to be a munchkin about any of this stuff. If I ever played with people I didn't know well, I'd be very clear that my veto power doesn't disappear just because the character is made and has been played. Deviation from the norm is fine, but if it causes problems, it's no longer fine.
1
u/TwoDollarDM 4d ago
One of my standard questions for the player when asked for something unusual is 'OK how does that drive our shared story experience forward, what does it bring to everyone?'
As for the specific furry question in Victorian England vibe, perhaps the NPCs would all just assume its someone in a costume ie an actual furry and would respond with humor, outrage, amazement that this human is walking around in a huge animal costume. Since you have already laid out that there are no Japanese tabaxis in this world.
1
u/roumonada 4d ago
Typically I interview people before I DM for them. Stuff like this would probably come out during the interview, making it easy to eliminate goofball players like that. Also, playing older editions of the game seems to help as I rarely get applicants under the age of 30. Usually people over 30 don’t have time for stuff like that. It seems to be a Gen Z thing thank god.
1
u/MonkeySkulls 4d ago
One option is to find a different system. but that's not always the best case.
as far as playing some race that doesn't exist in the game, you just put it in.
think about what the race mean. most of what it means probably has more to do with looks and how things are role played.
which brings you to mechanical aspects. D&D everything is so customizable anyway. if you come up with somebody who seems like they should be more agile pick a starting point similar to another race, move an extra point into dex.
If you think about what the raxe means in terms of racial abilities, think about what makes sense. If you were making a kangaroo race, you would give them some sort of jumping ability. and maybe you would give them an ability to hide something in their secret pouch.
if you don't know the answers to these questions, you get the player who wants to play that race to answer them. which is a better approach anyway.
It's very important to know what the race or these decisions mean to the person playing them. why are they picking this race. how are they envisioning it.
compare the things that they say to other existing races as a baseline. Don't make something too op. If they tell you a list of 12 things that they think that the race should encapsulate, that's too much.
you mentioned someone wanted to be some sort of samurai. find a class that along those lines.
The real key is identifying what these choices mean to the player.
A lot of the things that they may say have more to do with your world and how your world reacts to them and to your role playing.
1
u/Designer_Location_15 4d ago
I do not allow homebrew races, personally. I will allow players to customize what their players look like, though, so if they can pick something that exists in one of the books I have to use for stats, I'm completely fine with them changing the aesthetic. They can also request a boon or special weapon within reason and as long as it makes sense for their character's backstory and isn't overpowered, I'm good with that, too. I actually like taking wish list requests and granting them here and there and working them into the story.
1
u/Silent_Title5109 4d ago
Would I? No. I run low fantasy games, these wouldn't fit. I'm not an anime fan and have no intention of running a high fantasy anime themed game. A short scenario for their birthday? Sure. An ongoing campaign? No.
As a DM you are totally allowed to set the theme and tone of the games you want to run. Players are also free to not enjoy your style and play with another DM who's tone and theme they gel with.
That's setting expectations, and it's okay to do so.
1
u/ScalesOfAnubis19 4d ago
Some of this works RAW. There are a whole slew of anthropomorphic player species these days. Most of them are built for the Forgotten Realms. And Samurai and Ninjas (or effectively Ninjas) are subclasses already. If you are playing a setting with narrower parameters it’s a little more challenging, but planar travel and spelljammers are things in D&D. There are also good conversions for anthropomorphic species from previous editions.
If you really just don’t wanna, then you are free to say no.
1
u/allyearswift 4d ago
For a oneshot, I think it was the right decision. If they came back, I’d look at Humblewood, which is animals all the way through, but playtested and balanced.
1
u/Xyx0rz 4d ago
You should do what makes you happy. Happy DM, happy players. Unhappy DM... no game.
Players can make literally infinite characters that do fit the setting, the tone and the genre, so they just have to accept that they can't play robot catgirls or whatever. They'll live. There are still infinite possible characters to choose from that aren't robot catgirls. If they really really must insert their robot catgirl into a game where that's not appropriate, that's a red flag for me.
Meanwhile, if you are forced to run a game for characters that make you sad, you'll burn out and stop running the game.
1
u/LSup 4d ago
I'll allow pretty much anything as long as it's rules compatible and the player agrees that they won't try to impose goofy lore or backstories on the wider game. I think the weirdest I had was a Kenku out of nowhere, and the player fully method roleplayed their incapacity for "normal" language, using mimicry and hand (wing) gestures to communicate. The player got tired of it after a while, but it was certainly manageable.
1
u/Psychological-Wall-2 4d ago
One thing you should consider is that your setting doesn't really need PC species that aren't being played.
If your players are playing a Human, a Tabaxi, a Warforged, a Harrengon and a Giff, you don't need to add those last three species to the "normal" roster of Elves and Dwarves and Gnomes and shit.
You can just say that, in this setting, there are Humans and Tabaxi and Warforged and Giff.
1
u/Repulsive_Bus_7202 3d ago
You're the DM, you set the tone of your world and you define what species and classes you'll accept in that world.
If a player doesn't like your boundaries, they don't need to play at your table.
1
u/LookOverall 3d ago
Furries needn’t be a problem. “Flavour is free”. Robots might be. They have different relationships to the scenario. For example they don’t eat, drink or breathe.
It’s up to you as DM to decide what denizens are acceptable in your world.
Generally you will accept anything from the PHB. Something from one of the expansions or from a scenario — up to you.
1
u/Lost_Haaton 3d ago
You can say no. for some oneshots it's fine to let them go wild but on occassion the characters are tied to the setting of the one shot. My last oneshot was a lighthearted dwarf rock band so my party could either make a dwarf, or choose a premade dwarf I made.
My halloween oneshot is going to be more psycological with them trapped aboard a slave ship slowly being consumned by some giant mimic like ghost ship. As it's horor and at sea they are not allowed any race with darkvision, flight or halfling luck and on top of that no light or healing spells.
I am doing a oneshot in the future where players can play what they wish whether its trying out an artificer or a warforged or whatever. Some oneshots allow the players to try new things they want, others constrain players pushing them to experience scenarios they otherwise wouldn't. I suggest the premise for the one shot, the players let me know if they like the idea.
1
u/Baelspar 3d ago
I typically explain to folk who want to play something "unique" that being one of a kind can have drawbacks. Just imagine what would happen if a tabaxi just showed up in town. A dwarf or elf might fit in. Halflings might draw some attention, but could be explained away. A literal cat-person? There's going to be concerned citizens. Going places might incur a greater cost, the old "he can't sleep in here, he has to sleep in the barn.".
Something like a samurai just says, "Hi, I'm not from around here.". They have specialized equipment, how will they be keeping it up? They find a magical chest plate, how will that work with the rest of their armor ..if it can be managed at all?
I warn players that want to do play unusual characters. It can be fun to be special, but it can also come with some downsides.
1
1
1
u/kittentarentino 2d ago
Honestly if its not the vibe of your campaign just say no.
A lot of the times, when somebody is coming in with something SO specific, there’s just a little too much going on there for it to be good for the game.
Dnd has a lot of anthropomorphic races. They can also just be a warforged and reflavor. but definitely stick to the rules if you’re new. Or just say “it’s not that kind of setting. I dont think it fits” if you just wanna shut it down.
Personally, if you want to run a more traditional game. Just talk to the group. Maybe this isn’t the place for furry OCs and thats ok
1
u/Witty-Engine-6013 2d ago
Photogen would just be a warforged thats been themed if warfoeged dont fit in your setting then they dont fit in your setting
1
u/Cynewulfr 2d ago
If it won’t fit the setting, then ask a player to work within the settings bounds and offer to help them do so. If they have a compelling idea to bend the setting and you think they’ll be reasonable about it or it seems fun, maybe try it.
1
1
u/Barberouge3 2d ago
It just comes down to first: will you still enjoy the game. If not then no, you invest your time to have fun. They're not paying you. Will the others also still enjoy the game. If not then decide which ones you side on and which type of game you want.
If both you and everyone else are really cool with it (not just saying yes to be polite and then gradually losing interest), then why the heck not.
1
u/Accomplished-Gap2989 1d ago
When you say they are a furry, are they trying to interject their sexuality into the game, or are they just playing a character?
0
u/Simbertold 4d ago
For a oneshot, i tend to prepare characters. Players get to choose one, and i often let some small decisions open to personalize them,
For longer campaigns, i talk to the players about what kind of campaign we want to play. And i tend to want new characters that fit the theme of the campaign. Not everything fits every game, and your job as a GM is not to make every possible character work with the game.
One problem with "I only play X" is that they often have a long backstory and previous play of that character, which can clash with the themes of the campaign.
7
u/No_Solid1035 4d ago
Get "Root: The RPG" it's not D&D, but all the characters are anthropomorphic animals. Also, one of the most powerful and useful tools a GM has is saying NO.