Draegnoth:
It just seems so counterintuitive. We're adults playing make believe in games that strongly encourage everyone to be diverse and accepting...
"Diverse and accepting"? Depends on the setting I'm running. It may very well not be "diverse" or "accepting".
Regardless, what is counterintuitive about "every one who has every submitted a Kender, Tinker Gnome, or Malk as the 'only Character they're willing to play' in one of my games has been a problem Player*, so I don't allow those races/classes/clans/etc in my game"?
* Admittedly SunRuanEr seems to come from the "character ends up being the problem" more than my "it's the Player".
There are more than Kender, Tinker Gnome, Malk, but those are the top three that I say "NO!" to immediately. Like, if those are in setting, they will be on my "These Character Are Not Allowed At Campaign Start" list. Others... it depends on the type of game I'm running. In GURPS DFRPG Bards are on that list because they are either "I WIN" or "I LOSE" with no real middle ground, either they immediately shut down the encounter or they are useless, in which case it's not the Player I'm worried about being a problem, but the Character mot being fun to play
or have in the game.
I find saying hard NO right off to those Characters turns those Players away. Sometimes a "Malk Player" slips and is a mild nuisance until they can "Malkify" the character, or it dies and they take advantage of the looser chargen rules and make a "Malk" and suddenly become a problem.
And like it's not "just Malks". It can be the Player who upon seeing everyone has to start at PFC at most wants to be the Lieutenant or Sergeant so 'they can be in charge'. basically if someone wants to buck the set rules before we even get to the gate, they will be bucking rules all over the place once the game is in play.
So if I set rules in the RTJ, there are reasons and they aren't going to be flexible. But as SunRuanEr said, it's still worth asking. Not everyone is as inflexible as I am about that stuff.