We take having many playable species in fantasy role-playing games for granted. For example, 30-some years ago I wrote an article "My Life as a Werebear" (in White Dwarf #17) that provided rules for player character monster species such as blink dog packs and giants.
“Race” vs. “Species”
D&D rules uses the term “race” the way I would use “species”—nomenclature that is particularly present in the dominance of the “human race” in AD&D, as M.T. Black quoted Gary Gygax in Dragon Reflections #29. This is beginning to change; Pathfinder 2E now uses ancestries” instead of race. For the purposes of this article I’m using the term “species.” There are several reasons for multiple species in fantasy role-playing games:
When the game is not skill-based, playable species help provide variety. Variety is obviously desirable in games because players have more ways to enjoy the play. That variety can come from different character classes, different skills, or different species, among many other things.
Many game players nowadays favor variety over depth—depth requires more thinking, and not everyone wants to think for their entertainment. In other game fields, you may have seen board games that have "character cards" to achieve something like different kinds of playable creatures/people. Video games often have a few different playable characters.
Role-Playing Opportunities
Many players will play a dwarf quite differently from how they play a human, and as playable species become more exotic the differences can be more exaggerated. I think a designer wants to have more or less familiar species before they start adding their own creations, as many players will play the familiar species but not the unfamiliar ones.
Increased Gameplay Depth
Gameplay depth involves the number and importance of decisions in a game. As each species has different capabilities, you add to the possible depth of the game. A game can be relatively simple and still have lots of gameplay depth. It doesn't take a lot of thinking to cope with variety in a game, but to play a deep game well requires a lot of thought. While variety has been displacing gameplay depth in board games for quite some time, it still can exist in long board games if not in the short ones popular today. Same for RPGs.
Tactical Advantages
Species with different capabilities can alter tactics. For example, even in games where you can hit your own people with an arrow shot into melee, you can pretty safely fire over the head of a dwarf if you stand immediately behind (and you're not another very short character).
I recall playing with what we called the "elf army," that is, an adventuring party made up entirely of elves. We also had a "dwarf army" but that was less flexible because dwarves were not "magic users," though they had clerics. I remember playing in an all-human party that had no magic users, but without the extra benefits of being dwarves that was quite nerve-racking.
The Downside to So Many Species
Some rulesets try to use restrictions on species to balance their advantages. Unfortunately, players and GMs tend to drop the restrictions, leading to a form of power creep that in turn leads to newly developed species being more powerful than the traditional ones.
Species proliferation and a player's search to find one that's "good at everything" is a disadvantage of having lots of species. This variety also can lead to unbelievable variance in party composition that wouldn’t be found in most homogeneous fantasy cultures—although it strains credibility, this doesn’t usually bother players.
All these extra rules can make life harder for the GM and even the players. Wise GMs will limit the species available to the players rather than accept anything that's published.
“Race” vs. “Species”
D&D rules uses the term “race” the way I would use “species”—nomenclature that is particularly present in the dominance of the “human race” in AD&D, as M.T. Black quoted Gary Gygax in Dragon Reflections #29. This is beginning to change; Pathfinder 2E now uses ancestries” instead of race. For the purposes of this article I’m using the term “species.” There are several reasons for multiple species in fantasy role-playing games:
- Variety
- Role-Playing Opportunities
- Increase Gameplay Depth
- Tactical Advantages
When the game is not skill-based, playable species help provide variety. Variety is obviously desirable in games because players have more ways to enjoy the play. That variety can come from different character classes, different skills, or different species, among many other things.
Many game players nowadays favor variety over depth—depth requires more thinking, and not everyone wants to think for their entertainment. In other game fields, you may have seen board games that have "character cards" to achieve something like different kinds of playable creatures/people. Video games often have a few different playable characters.
Role-Playing Opportunities
Many players will play a dwarf quite differently from how they play a human, and as playable species become more exotic the differences can be more exaggerated. I think a designer wants to have more or less familiar species before they start adding their own creations, as many players will play the familiar species but not the unfamiliar ones.
Increased Gameplay Depth
Gameplay depth involves the number and importance of decisions in a game. As each species has different capabilities, you add to the possible depth of the game. A game can be relatively simple and still have lots of gameplay depth. It doesn't take a lot of thinking to cope with variety in a game, but to play a deep game well requires a lot of thought. While variety has been displacing gameplay depth in board games for quite some time, it still can exist in long board games if not in the short ones popular today. Same for RPGs.
Tactical Advantages
Species with different capabilities can alter tactics. For example, even in games where you can hit your own people with an arrow shot into melee, you can pretty safely fire over the head of a dwarf if you stand immediately behind (and you're not another very short character).
I recall playing with what we called the "elf army," that is, an adventuring party made up entirely of elves. We also had a "dwarf army" but that was less flexible because dwarves were not "magic users," though they had clerics. I remember playing in an all-human party that had no magic users, but without the extra benefits of being dwarves that was quite nerve-racking.
The Downside to So Many Species
Some rulesets try to use restrictions on species to balance their advantages. Unfortunately, players and GMs tend to drop the restrictions, leading to a form of power creep that in turn leads to newly developed species being more powerful than the traditional ones.
Species proliferation and a player's search to find one that's "good at everything" is a disadvantage of having lots of species. This variety also can lead to unbelievable variance in party composition that wouldn’t be found in most homogeneous fantasy cultures—although it strains credibility, this doesn’t usually bother players.
All these extra rules can make life harder for the GM and even the players. Wise GMs will limit the species available to the players rather than accept anything that's published.
