SpiralBound
Explorer
I can't quite tell if the original poster and a few of the others who replied are for or against human subraces? I suppose that if we're going to have hundreds of subraces of everything else, then I guess we may as well have them for humans too...
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the style of subrace that basically follows the methodology of taking race "A" and applying generic descriptors "1" through "infinity". Take for instance the 1001 colours of Elves that exist. :\ grey elves, blue elves, black elves (not the underdark ones), smoke elves, green elves, red elves, fushia, turquoise, and saffron elves!
Or the exact same process just with terrain, environment or material templates, which is really only slightly better than colour coding them. forest elves, desert elves, mountain elves, aquatic elves, sky elves, dusk elves, shadow elves, fire elves, water elves, mud, plaster and brick elves!
My point isn't that subtypes shouldn't exist, it's just that they should exist for a good setting related reason. More and more, it seems that some of the subraces that get created are made to justify a "kewl" race name or to "complete the set" so to speak. ("Oh! Oh! We haven't made highway Elves yet! A highway is part of the landscape, right?")
The original Dark Elves made sense in the setting that they first appeared in due to the history of that specific setting that they were a part of, similarly so for Sylvan and High Elves. Now however, it seems that almost EVERY setting has these and many many more types of Elves, Gnomes, Dwarves, etc. Sometimes the setting makes a very good case for justifying them. Sadly though, in most cases they don't and it's obvious that they were added to appease the expectations of the average gamer.
I'd much rather have subraces that make sense for the setting that they're a part of, that have a more cultural and historical basis for their physical and mental distinctions, rather then just an excuse to give say, a breath weapon to an Orc cause you think it's "Kewl".
I know that there are some good settings out there that don't do this, but I'm talking about the majority that don't. As for a race book (human or otherwise) that simply splatters it's pages with a bunch of disconnected subraces that don't technically belong in any intrinsic way to a specific setting... Well, like I said in the begining of this rant, once you decide to have as many random flavours of subraces as you can, then yet another subrace book is a good thing... :\ The only valuable application I can see for such a book is to allow a GM to use one or two races from it that fit the concept and style of his setting, or more likely as an inspiration in making his own. However, once you consider just how many such race books there actually are out there in print right now, and temper that consideration with what the average gamer's response is to the seemingly neverending tide of yet another "crunch-filled" book of rules expansions without any real setting-specific flavour attached, and it becomes obvious that what is most likely to happen is that all of these subraces will be accepted as "canon" for all settings without any consideration for their suitability or degree of sensibility.
Again, I know that there are many gamers out there that DON'T blindly act that way. In fact, many of the people who I see post here in these forums I would consider to be gamers who put a great deal more thought into their gaming decisions than I'm implying here. Still, a recent stat I read (here in this forum actually) stated that there are approx. 4 million gamers these days and I know that they don't all post here! I hate to be so negative, but I'm seeing more and more books getting published these days "just because".
[sarcasm]
It's almost as though the marketing departments are the only ones calling the shots when it comes to deciding what will get written next...![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
[/sarcasm]
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the style of subrace that basically follows the methodology of taking race "A" and applying generic descriptors "1" through "infinity". Take for instance the 1001 colours of Elves that exist. :\ grey elves, blue elves, black elves (not the underdark ones), smoke elves, green elves, red elves, fushia, turquoise, and saffron elves!
Or the exact same process just with terrain, environment or material templates, which is really only slightly better than colour coding them. forest elves, desert elves, mountain elves, aquatic elves, sky elves, dusk elves, shadow elves, fire elves, water elves, mud, plaster and brick elves! My point isn't that subtypes shouldn't exist, it's just that they should exist for a good setting related reason. More and more, it seems that some of the subraces that get created are made to justify a "kewl" race name or to "complete the set" so to speak. ("Oh! Oh! We haven't made highway Elves yet! A highway is part of the landscape, right?")
The original Dark Elves made sense in the setting that they first appeared in due to the history of that specific setting that they were a part of, similarly so for Sylvan and High Elves. Now however, it seems that almost EVERY setting has these and many many more types of Elves, Gnomes, Dwarves, etc. Sometimes the setting makes a very good case for justifying them. Sadly though, in most cases they don't and it's obvious that they were added to appease the expectations of the average gamer.
I'd much rather have subraces that make sense for the setting that they're a part of, that have a more cultural and historical basis for their physical and mental distinctions, rather then just an excuse to give say, a breath weapon to an Orc cause you think it's "Kewl".
I know that there are some good settings out there that don't do this, but I'm talking about the majority that don't. As for a race book (human or otherwise) that simply splatters it's pages with a bunch of disconnected subraces that don't technically belong in any intrinsic way to a specific setting... Well, like I said in the begining of this rant, once you decide to have as many random flavours of subraces as you can, then yet another subrace book is a good thing... :\ The only valuable application I can see for such a book is to allow a GM to use one or two races from it that fit the concept and style of his setting, or more likely as an inspiration in making his own. However, once you consider just how many such race books there actually are out there in print right now, and temper that consideration with what the average gamer's response is to the seemingly neverending tide of yet another "crunch-filled" book of rules expansions without any real setting-specific flavour attached, and it becomes obvious that what is most likely to happen is that all of these subraces will be accepted as "canon" for all settings without any consideration for their suitability or degree of sensibility.
Again, I know that there are many gamers out there that DON'T blindly act that way. In fact, many of the people who I see post here in these forums I would consider to be gamers who put a great deal more thought into their gaming decisions than I'm implying here. Still, a recent stat I read (here in this forum actually) stated that there are approx. 4 million gamers these days and I know that they don't all post here!
I hate to be so negative, but I'm seeing more and more books getting published these days "just because".[sarcasm]
It's almost as though the marketing departments are the only ones calling the shots when it comes to deciding what will get written next...
[/sarcasm]
