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

[EzekielRaiden]

I like that idea, but in practice I often end up with a party of mutants and anomalies.

Given, IIRC, you have a steady and consistent group you play with: Have you not spoken with your players about this? It sounds like you are upset by having "a party of mutants and anomalies." It would seem that a friendly, adult conversation should address the problem. And if, after such an adult conversation, they continue to engage in that behavior anyway....it would seem you have a bigger problem than "players are picking something that upsets me."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do people assume that saying "Looks like Mos Eisley Cantina" is derogatory? Because to me, it's not. I have plenty of issues with how Star Wars handles aliens. But there being dozens of different aliens when there are dozens, if not hundreds of habitable worlds is not one of them. If I'm watching Zootopia (which, while not serious, I thought was fun), seeing all sorts of anthropomorphic animals just makes sense for the assumptions used in world building.

Even "kitchen sink campaign" is not inherently bad, it's just a descriptor. I may not like dozens of races for my home campaign, but it's because of the assumptions of how I envision the world. Unlike Star wars, there are not dozens of different planets (or moons) for these species to inhabit. That's all.

I don't have a problem with it in Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Spelljammer, or Planescape (although a touch of the familiar even there is very helpful).

You know what virtually every sci-fi and fantasy story (including every film or series ever based on D&D) has in the party? At least one human. Thst single point of grounding makes it much easier for folks to accept all the other weirdness. What I see in actual games, however, are two different-colored tieflings (one with wings), a lizardfolk, a drow, and a dragonborn.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given, IIRC, you have a steady and consistent group you play with: Have you not spoken with your players about this? It sounds like you are upset by having "a party of mutants and anomalies." It would seem that a friendly, adult conversation should address the problem. And if, after such an adult conversation, they continue to engage in that behavior anyway....it would seem you have a bigger problem than "players are picking something that upsets me."

I want there to be a fair number of different races available, but I would also like someone to be a human. If no one wants to play one, there's not much I can do about it, so I just deal. This thread is about your personal preferences. I don't always get them, but I still have them.

 

[Incenjucar]

As a player, the only reason I ever roll up a human is for a mechanical advantage (like avoiding the 2e level limits). There's no barrier to playing with both the species and the culture of your character, so being non-human just gives you an extra angle to work with.

The most visible human cultures in D&D tend to be bland, cliche, or a little bit problematic anyway.

 

[Minigiant]

Every single table I sit at... whether that be home games or cons or wherever... I'm never confronted with someone playing a character that does not seem human. Every single PC could be a Human so far as how the characters are played.

I am saddened that you and many others never experienced a elf or half elf treating every being under 100 year old as a little child and suggesting that people slow down their rush to make decisions

.When the group gives me the okay to roleplay a race like a nonhuman, I dive in. And some others do as well.

That's why I tend to only run dwarfs as NPCs as a DM and rarely as a player.

 

[Aldarc]

Narratively... if there are dozens upon dozens of intelligent humanoids in the world itself... there should be a connective Race write-up to have one of them as a possible PC. There's no reason why any one of them couldn't become an "adventurer" in the game world. So in that regard... I'm absolutely fine with WotC continually coming up with new Races for optional PCs. It makes total sense.

That being said... I also know for a fact that few if any D&D players I've ever encountered actually play any non-human races because they desire to get into the mindset of playing something "alien" to them. Rather, almost every single one has just gone the "Human in Funny Hat" route and more often than not select their race... indeed it is true... based upon the game mechanics the Race provides.

Every single table I sit at... whether that be home games or cons or wherever... I'm never confronted with someone playing a character that does not seem human. Every single PC could be a Human so far as how the characters are played. So in that regard... I usually prefer a more constrained list because I'm a DM who enjoys having his players interacting with their Backgrounds and that often means others of their Race. And the more disparate the Racial make-up of the party is... the more far and wide I have to send the party to allow that to happen.

Trying to find reasons for a party of a Duergar, Aarakocra, Grung, Fairy, and Githyanki to not only get together for whatever reason to go adventuring, but then also meet up with other duergars, aarakockras, grungs, fairies, and githyanki is kind of ridiculous. The only somewhat useful option at that point is to design a game world where those five are the predominant Races of the world rather than Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings are, but at that point that type of game world just holds less interest to me and I don't want to run anything in it. Especially considering the fact that I know my players would play that Duergar, Aarakocra, Grung, Fairy, and Githyanki exactly the same as if they were five Humans... so what's the point?

I freely admit this is purely my own prejudices and not anything that is a problem with the game. So I'm glad WotC makes all these options available for players... I just don't usually want to play with the players who take WotC up on them.

So despite all the differences between diverse peoples - whether on the basis of their ancestry, appearance, culture, or the funny hat they wear - we are all humans on the inside who are trying our best to get along an overcome challenges together? Wow. Who could possibly see the value in a crazy idea like that?

 

[delericho]

I want there to be a fair number of different races available, but I would also like someone to be a human.

My preference would be that choice of race should be the fastest one made in the whole of character creation: if a player comes to the table with a burning desire to play X (whatever X is) then great - play that! But if they don't have a fixed idea coming in, play a human.

My players have a very different view - I can't remember the last time someone chose to write "human" on their character sheet.

 

[Minigiant]

Your preference is for more races, mine is for more cultures. Star Wars is a game of many "worlds", not just countries. It is more believable for me that in such a game (with space travel) you are likely to have dozens or even hundreds of species that can intermingle. Many D&D worlds IME are more constrained than that IMO and so have fewer races, because given "human-nature" anyway we tend not to tolerate many rivals.

To me, many races and many cultures are close to being the same.

This is due to me being a bit sensitive about copying real life cultures, boredom with the classic cultures, and most tables using races as cultural shortcuts.

It's a personal high horse for me. I feel that I am too good of a world builder to copy real world cultures or frequently used classic D&D racial cultures unless that is the point of the setting. Don't come to my table thinking you will find wood elves and norse dwarves unless we are running Klassico.

 

[Stormonu]

The more and different races there are, the more I have to choose from and try out as a player. I'm a human 24/7, when I'm playing a fantasy game I like to stretch my legs and get to be something I'm not. It's even more enjoyable when no one's played that race in a game yet, as I get to develop any racial culture through play.

A given player party has about 4-6 players. Even if they all chose a different non-human race, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the campaign's population. It doesn't bother me as a DM and I can adjust up, down or simply not use non-human races as I see fit. There may be a player version of it in the group, but I don't necessarily have to worry about coming up with an entire race of them if I don't want to. A player can be a one-off, ranging from a curse, mutation, reskin or from a distant land or even plane of existence. I've used all of those reasons and more to allow players to run a certain character in a game.

But, if we're playing Dark Sun, you're not playing a gnome, nor an Orc on Krynn.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Rather, almost every single one has just gone the "Human in Funny Hat" route and more often than not select their race... indeed it is true... based upon the game mechanics the Race provides.

Yeah, this is true 99% of the time IME...

Don't come to my table thinking you will find wood elves and norse dwarves unless we are running Klassico.

When you decide to run Klassico, let me know!