D&D General What are your Core races?

[Sithlord]

I agree with you. And for some reason, the thing that they want to play is almost always some kind of OP/broken combo...

But but but sorlock is just my character concept. It’s necessary. Same with my paladin sorcerer

 

[Chaosmancer]

man, you guys are so much better at this, I can't even hammer out one custom race properly.

I'm terrible at figuring out the mechanics.

Story-wise... I just ended up asking questions. One big thing I've noticed about my personal world-building is that I am far more interested in the religions and practical applications.

Just for an example, I realized the first time I tried to write a world with plantfolk that if they buried their dead, it would have a far different connotation than it does for humans. I imagined that in doing so they were keeping the dead as part of the living community, in fact, it would make some sense if their minds or maybe souls stuck around. Well, then you need someone to handle that and tend to the dead, so I made a "priest/priestess" class whose sole role was to be in a single location and tend to the dead beneath the earth. You then need people to protect them..

And so on and so on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My current setting has three 'core races' at this point. There are plenty more of sapient species, but these are the most prominent ones.
(I already posted these pics in another thread, but seems to be apropos for this as well)

Spoiler: Humans

Humans. You might be familiar with these guys. Humans are numerous and have variety of differnt cultures. Most live in small hunter-gatherer tribes or nomadic bands, using mostly stone age technology, whilst some build city states and have mastered the bronze.

Hunter-gatherers

Sherennid traders who travel between the various settlements on their droms caravans. (the droms are huge draft animals)

People from the city states. From left to right: wizard-scribe from Shimbal, hedonite from Xaharranad, Marutian noblewoman, Ilumian soldier.

Spoiler: Eldri

The Eldri are small elf-like beings that live in small clans or family groups. From left to right: river clan, jungle clan, desert clan, underdark clan.

Spoiler: Orcs

The Orcs are proud and honourable warrior people who are much hardier than humans and thus can survive in extreme conditions. They mostly live in deserts though many also can be found in the cities of humanity.

There are also gnolls, lizardfolk, kreen (basically thri-kreen) kobols (dog-men kobolds), morogs (ape-men like bugbear equivalents) and some others. But these are really not that detailed.

Those art pieces are AMAZING

 

[Mind of tempest]

I'm terrible at figuring out the mechanics.

Story-wise... I just ended up asking questions. One big thing I've noticed about my personal world-building is that I am far more interested in the religions and practical applications.

Just for an example, I realized the first time I tried to write a world with plantfolk that if they buried their dead, it would have a far different connotation than it does for humans. I imagined that in doing so they were keeping the dead as part of the living community, in fact, it would make some sense if their minds or maybe souls stuck around. Well, then you need someone to handle that and tend to the dead, so I made a "priest/priestess" class whose sole role was to be in a single location and tend to the dead beneath the earth. You then need people to protect them..

And so on and so on.

I am far more of a cultural ideals kinda guy with a side or of fundamental differences of biology, if dwarves and live permanently underground they do not need sunlight to survive this would likely impact what they think about getting sun, but they still need air circulation so you would see giant air vent structures above ground to let air circulate something like this.

on culture, it really depends on what I want them to care about and then come up with unique variants for them to have of a thing, excellent for subclass fodder.

 

[Scott Christian]

For the sake of discussion, let's say that you're putting out your own homebrew campaign setting and you get to choose 9 races but CANNOT include the original 3 demihumans - elf, dwarf, halfling. Your new lineup can be from the history of canonical D&D lore or something new to the game.

What does your world's core 9 looks like?

If we are negating elf, dwarf and halfling...

3 types of humans (cultural abilities based on years of living in a region)
furlay (tabaxi, khajiit, whatever you want to call them; magically created hundreds of years ago)
and some type of wilder; a distant human branch from eons ago that evolved the same as humans, but has some differences. Just as smart but not technologically advanced. Basically an evolved Denisovan or Neanderthal.

I would stick with those five. Nine on one continent, for my personal taste, is too many.

 

[thundershot]

One thing I'm confused by is the people who run multiple homebrew worlds. What is it that you are trying to learn/discover/answer by running a new world with every campaign?

My homebrew world has been the same, across systems, for about 25 years

I’ve used the same continuity for 35 years. During the Spelljammer and Planescape days, the party would hop around but the main world is loosely based on Mystara (Isle of Dread started it all) but a totally different map. Then the world was changed a couple times between editions (2e-3e and them 3e-4e) but the actual universal continuity has stayed the same and even still has characters from the 2E days running around.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When writing a supplement, because it actually does make a big difference, it is much easier to add core things than it is to remove things that were part of the core rules. Once something is part of the "core rules" then certain players feel entitled to use it, making it much more difficult to remove without alienating that player. "The D&D book that I paid $50 for has Dragonborn/Teiflings/whatever in it! It is NOT FAIR that I can't play what I want!"

If that were true, why didn't 4e's version of Dark Sun cause a huge riot among the fans? People were quite receptive. Some things did get adapted (e.g. Dragonborn as a second version of Dray), but plenty of extinct races remained extinct, and divine classes were still not available as an option.

4e was the absolute poster child for "everything is core" philosophy, and yet it DID NOT have the very problem you cite. Whereas I have personally and frequently seen the reverse, where if you're a player who wants something without official support, tough luck buddy, nobody's gonna let you have the thing you genuinely just like for its flavor, or because it allows you to realize a combination you think is cool. Doesn't matter if it's better balanced than the core rules, 5e DMs are far more likely than not to not merely reject it but get MAD at you for suggesting it. And the situation isn't better if you're a DM. Damn near every thread I see where someone asks how something should work, one of the first ten replies (often the first three!) is "you're the DM, you decide" (or "ask your DM" followed by "...I am the DM, I'm asking for advice").

It is always easier to limit than to expand when it comes to race and (especially) class options. Period. You CANNOT tell me that persuading a player to get on board with your narrower slice of the rules is actually more work than inventing a whole new class. Like, even with 5e classes potentially being pretty simple, I've spent hours and hours trying to get just ONE into a shape that's both a reasonable first approximation of balanced (testing is always needed to know for sure) and that fits the flavor and concept I want, and I'm not even half finished. Are you truly going to claim that one conversation--wherein you literally have veto power and can just say, "if you don't like it, you are not required to play at my table"--is harder than that?

If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Sithlord]

If that were true, why didn't 4e's version of Dark Sun cause a huge riot among the fans? People were quite receptive. Some things did get adapted (e.g. Dragonborn as a second version of Dray), but plenty of extinct races remained extinct, and divine classes were still not available as an option.

4e was the absolute poster child for "everything is core" philosophy, and yet it DID NOT have the very problem you cite. Whereas I have personally and frequently seen the reverse, where if you're a player who wants something without official support, tough luck buddy, nobody's gonna let you have the thing you genuinely just like for its flavor, or because it allows you to realize a combination you think is cool. Doesn't matter if it's better balanced than the core rules, 5e DMs are far more likely than not to not merely reject it but get MAD at you for suggesting it. And the situation isn't better if you're a DM. Damn near every thread I see where someone asks how something should work, one of the first ten replies (often the first three!) is "you're the DM, you decide" (or "ask your DM" followed by "...I am the DM, I'm asking for advice").

It is always easier to limit than to expand when it comes to race and (especially) class options. Period. You CANNOT tell me that persuading a player to get on board with your narrower slice of the rules is actually more work than inventing a whole new class. Like, even with 5e classes potentially being pretty simple, I've spent hours and hours trying to get just ONE into a shape that's both a reasonable first approximation of balanced (testing is always needed to know for sure) and that fits the flavor and concept I want, and I'm not even half finished. Are you truly going to claim that one conversation--wherein you literally have veto power and can just say, "if you don't like it, you are not required to play at my table"--is harder than that?

If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Because most players abandoned 4E for other systems

 

[AnotherGuy]

I have that in in one of my backpocket setting: Pantheon War.

Men
Asgardians
Olympians
Satyr
Dragonborn
Goblins
Critterfolk
Gnomes
Warforged


Followers of the Order/Knowledge Pantheon
Men, Dragonborn, Warforged

Followers of the War/Trickery Pantheneon
Men, Asgardians, Goliaths, Warforged

Followers of the Tempest Panthenon
Men, Goliaths, Satyrs, Olympians, Warforged

Followers of the Life Pantheon
Men

Followers of the Nature "Pantheon""
Critterfolk, Gnomes, Satyrs, Warforged

Followers of the Light God
Men, Goblins, Satyre, Olympians, Warforged

Followers of the Death Panthenon
Goblins, Warforged

Asgardians only follow War/Trickery Pantheon?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One thing I'm confused by is the people who run multiple homebrew worlds. What is it that you are trying to learn/discover/answer by running a new world with every campaign?

My homebrew world has been the same, across systems, for about 25 years

I'm only running one game at present, but I am at least thinking about what to do once that game wraps up. I'll most likely make a new world, unless the players really want to explore one of the other continents we haven't been to yet.

My reason is quite simple: cosmology matters. There's a very specific tone and structure to the cosmology of my current setting ("Jewel of the Desert"). I'm very proud of my worldbulding in it, but it's also limiting in a variety of ways. Devils and demons have a well-defined origin and history. The world is cut off from the planes, with only a couple (equally closed-off) exceptions. Divine beings are almost never seen. Spirits are friggin' everywhere. Etc. These are all important for making the play experience feel the way it does; I've taken great care to build a world, both from my own interests and from input from players in and out of game, that fits together and provides answerable questions and thought-provoking situations.

A new world allows me to do that again, fresh, with new answers and new situations. I can articulate a different perspective with a world that supports or embodies new ideas that differ from the previous one.

One very simple example: monotheism and spirit-worship are the two most common religions in this world. There may be polytheist, henotheist, or agnostic/non-theist societies out there, but they're uncommon. However, the spirits have no more answers than mortals do about the nature of existence (most of them being natural entities/forces that slowly gain awareness, or archetypes specifically produced by the efforts of living beings...like humans and elves etc.), and the monotheistic deity rarely (if ever) personally answers prayers or speaks to their faithful. As a result, I get to have lots of nice "what is faith, is God real, why do we do good" type plots, but I miss out on plots that pit gods against one another or which have PCs engage with gods (whether to help or hinder, save or slay, be taught by or tell off for their deeds, etc.)

So. I make worlds anew because the world itself matters for both philosophical and practical reasons. Also because sometimes I just want to do something cool, like saying that dragons are gods and angels, which doesn't fit with a world I'm already running.