D&D General Do you like LOTS of races/ancestries/whatever? If so, why?

[Reynard]

Sometimes it seems like the thing most homebrewers and 3PP alike do is create new races. Tons of them. I think 5E has an official count of what, 40, playable races? The number quickly reaches into the hundreds if you include all the 3PP content. The same thing can be seen over at paizo, and you even see folks creating tons of races for OSR style fantasy games.

My question is: does that appeal to you? Do you like a campaign world that has dozens or even hundreds of player option races? If so, why? What's the upside?

For my part, I feel like there's a point where it gets too Mos Eisley or Pirates of Dark Water. Not only does too many races kill the wonder of non-human characters, but I feel like they become mechanical shticks and themes and there's nothing otherwise distinct about the races as cultures. They are just humans with funny hats and stat bonuses.

Now, I can see the appeal of having a big pool from which to draw a few for world building. I don't want every world to look like Middle Earth, but a world that is just firbolgs, kenku, gnolls and deep gnomes might have appeal.

Thoughts?

 

[humble minion]

Depends on the game. If I was world-building I'd most likely go with the smaller pool of allowable races. But for something like Spelljammer or Planescape or even a major cosmopolitan metropolis like Waterdeep, having every possible weirdo critter rubbing elbows in the same campaign is entirely in-genre.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My question is: does that appeal to you? Do you like a campaign world that has dozens or even hundreds of player option races?

Nope. I don't like it at all. I agree it feels more like a Star Wars cantina.

I don't want every world to look like Middle Earth, but a world that is just firbolgs, kenku, gnolls and deep gnomes might have appeal.

I ran a game where all the PCs were "animal-head" races and were all monks, traveling from their continent to the "Middle Earth" lands (so to say). People knew of their "Zootopia-land", but most had never met anyone from it.

It was actually a lot of fun.

 

[Maxperson]

I like a ton of races to be out there, but not for the entire party to consist of them.

 

[RuinousPowers]

I like having a huge selection to choose from, so they can keep putting them out. The more mechanics for me to kitbash with, the better.

 

[Hex08]

My personal preference is fewer, my homebrew game only has three. However, that could change depending on the setting. I think settings like Spelljammer and Planescape benefit from a wider variety but not too many.

I don't play D&D anymore but even in games not set in my home brew setting I tend to limit the number available.

 

[Bitbrain]

The longer I play D&D, the more I prefer what my dad refers to as “curated” settings; that is to say, settings (homebrew or otherwise) where the DM limits the number of playable species, because said DM is going for a specific look/feel/flavor/genre/theme/etc with their campaign.

Not sure why though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not sure why though.

For me, it makes the fantasy world feel more "grounded" and less a collection of "aliens" like Star Wars. IMO that is great for SW, but not for D&D. When I have only 8-10 races (maximum) typically in my games, it allows me to really develop them more in the history of the setting, etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sometimes it seems like the thing most homebrewers and 3PP alike do is create new races. Tons of them. I think 5E has an official count of what, 40, playable races? The number quickly reaches into the hundreds if you include all the 3PP content. The same thing can be seen over at paizo, and you even see folks creating tons of races for OSR style fantasy games.

My question is: does that appeal to you? Do you like a campaign world that has dozens or even hundreds of player option races? If so, why? What's the upside?

So, personally, as a DM, I prefer a curated setting with maybe a dozen races at the most. However, having lots of published race options gives me a lot to choose from to create that curated list. Like, sure, I could go with the old reliable PHB set. But alternatively, I could pick and choose from among the many options out there and create something more distinctive.

As a player, I also prefer a curated setting because usually when there are fewer options, each is more fleshed out than when there are tons of them. That said, I think most people I have played with prefer a wide open field of options, for similar reasons to why I like having them as a DM: more opportunity to pick something that feels unique and different.

For my part, I feel like there's a point where it gets too Mos Eisley or Pirates of Dark Water. Not only does too many races kill the wonder of non-human characters,

I understand what you mean, but could you possibly have picked two worse examples of species diversity killing the wonder of a setting? The Mos Eisley Cantina scene’s entire raison d'etre is to make the world of the film feel more wondrous than our own, and Pirates of Dark Water was just a fantastic, diverse adventure show.

Granted, this is certainly a thing that can happen, where overdoing the fantastical elements of a setting can ironically make them less impactful. This is part of why I tend to prefer more curated settings. Everything within them is there for a specific purpose, so it all has the appropriate punch. But having lots of options in the game facilitates that. If there were only a dozen playable races, there’d be nothing to cut down to. Every setting would be the same, familiar tolkienesque medieval European fantasy setting. You don’t get to have Dark Sun without Aarakocra and Thri-Kreen.

but I feel like they become mechanical shticks and themes and there's nothing otherwise distinct about the races as cultures. They are just humans with funny hats and stat bonuses.

Meh. This has never been a compelling argument and never will be. Since fantasy authors are human, they cannot write inhuman perspectives. All fantasy and scifi races are “humans with funny hats,” and that doesn’t keep them from being interesting. It doesn’t make them interesting either - that requires good writing. But that’s also true of human characters without hats.

Now, I can see the appeal of having a big pool from which to draw a few for world building. I don't want every world to look like Middle Earth, but a world that is just firbolgs, kenku, gnolls and deep gnomes might have appeal.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I agree with you there. That said, as a DM I also have to accept that it isn’t all about what I want. The players are there to have fun too, and if a player gets their fun from being the one and only shadar-kai in a world of firbolgs, kenku, gnolls and deep gnomes, who am I to tell them they can’t?

 

[Charlaquin]

The longer I play D&D, the more I prefer what my dad refers to as “curated” settings; that is to say, settings (homebrew or otherwise) where the DM limits the number of playable species, because said DM is going for a specific look/feel/flavor/genre/theme/etc with their campaign.

Not sure why though.

Curated settings tend to have more thematic and tonal cohesion than kitchen sink settings. With a limited set of options, every option that makes the cut does so because it brings something to the table that the setting would be worse off without. Anything that can’t do that is only a distraction from the stuff that can.