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

[Scott Christian]

My question is: does that appeal to you?

Sometimes. As a player, I think it depends more on the DM and how they implement it.

Do you like a campaign world that has dozens or even hundreds of player option races?

I have not minded campaigns other people have run that have many races. The stories have been fun. That said, I have appreciated the world building of DMs that are more selective in their approach regarding races. Their stories seem to reach a deeper level, mostly because races have distinct cultures.

If so, why? What's the upside?

As a DM, if I am building a world, I want it to have two things: depth and logic. I can't think of any other way to do races than to give them very distinct cultures, and then subcultures within the culture, and then an individual panache. When a place is mixed (more than one race), it is the culture of the place, then the race's culture, then the subculture of the races, and then the individual.

I think culture intersects with all of it.

I think contrasts play an important role regarding races too. A race that is deeply rooted with family that borders on a hive mind versus a race that is all about individualism. A race that is xenophobic versus a race that is always welcoming. A race that is deeply devoted to nature versus one that has lost connection with nature. Without these contrasts, the opposites become less special, and therefore, harbors less depth. Without the mass society deeply rooted with family, the individualistic society is just like everyone else. Without the racist xenophobes, the open society doesn't stand out as special. Without the nature loving society, the semi-industrial society is just another place.

There will be some that say you could replace the word culture with race in the above paragraph, but I disagree. And it has to do with part two of world building - logic.

It seems illogical to me that to have dozens of cities with twenty races running around, one where they all just get along, can host many of the insulated society values that seem to take place in a "typical" D&D world. If it is one special place, like some otherworldly, planar city, sure. But when it's a lot of them, it makes no sense. There are just too many logic gaps for it to feel cohesive.

Even Star Wars, noted for its "Cantina," harbors the race view. Luke's home world, Tatooine, was racially divided, and each race had their own culture. It was the major cities that weren't, but they also had the ability to travel almost in an instant. In a D&D world, how many people can travel like that? If your campaign is almost everyone, then, I guess, you have a valid point for having this intermingling so common. But if not, then the race is somewhat insulated.

Just my two copper.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Tritons alone? No, not at all, if it fits the game world.

Tritons + Dwarves + Firbolg + Kenku + Humans + Gnomes + Tabaxi + Goliaths + Dragonborn + etc. just might... How many you need for that to break depends on the person. For you, maybe this 10, 20, 37, 942, or infinite... For me, it is about 12ish.

To me it is not any exact number, but the tritons are a good example of a thing I dislike. I have nothing against tritons. But what I don't like is tritons, merfolk, sea elves and the water genasi all existing in the same setting. It is basically the same fictional concept, but duplicated four times. I'd rather have one versatile and well defined aquatic species. Same with any other concept or niche.

 

[Scott Christian]

Verisimilitude is just a catspaw for 'I don't like it' and whoever taught D&D fans that word should be punished.

I respectfully disagree. The word's definition is consistent, but just like many words, its connotation can vary based on the person using it. This seems like a blanket statement for, "I don't disagree with what they disagree about, so I won't try to understand."

These aren't fighting words. I am just merely pointing out what I see. Rebuttals are fully welcomed and will be considered sincerely.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Tritons alone? No, not at all, if it fits the game world.

Tritons + Dwarves + Firbolg + Kenku + Humans + Gnomes + Tabaxi + Goliaths + Dragonborn + etc. just might... How many you need for that to break depends on the person. For you, maybe this 10, 20, 37, 942, or infinite... For me, it is about 12ish.

But it seems to me that the problem isn’t really about NUMBER of races. Let’s assume it’s the beginning of the campaign and you are the DM, and a player comes with a Loxodon monk (to choose a race that doesn’t feature in many settings).

You might say “sorry, I already have 12 races in my campaign world, and I don’t have room for another one”.

If you did what would you respond if the player responded “well, no one is playing Goliaths, why don’t you replace Goliaths with Loxodons?”

You might also say “well, I don’t want to come up with lore and background to fit them in my world”.

If you said that, what would you respond if the player answered “actually, I have detailed ideas about Loxodons, inspired by Tibetan monks. What if they were a race of spiritual and reclusive individuals that resided on mountain peaks?”

The point I’m getting at here is that very often the issue isn’t number of races or difficulty of players accurately portraying alien mindsets, or even world-building, it’s about DMs being resistant to incorporating ideas into “their” world that weren’t authored by them.

 

[FrozenNorth]

To me it is not any exact number, but the tritons are a good example of a thing I dislike. I have nothing against tritons. But what I don't like is tritons, merfolk, sea elves and the water genasi all existing in the same setting. It is basically the same fictional concept, but duplicated four times. I'd rather have one versatile and well defined aquatic species. Same with any other concept or niche.

Sure, but if the world had sea elves, and the player want to play a triton, why not accommodate the player and replace sea elves with tritons?. By your own admission, you feel that the races occupy the same niche.

Also, I choose tritons as an example for a reason: the argument had been made that many races was unrealistic because the would compete among each other and wipe each other out. This argument does not apply to tritons who occupy a different niche than most humanoids.

 

[Scribe]

The point I’m getting at here is that very often the issue isn’t number of races or difficulty of players accurately portraying alien mindsets, or even world-building, it’s about DMs being resistant to incorporating ideas into “their” world that weren’t authored by them.

You have a point, but if I wanted them in, they would be in.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, but if the world had sea elves, and the player want to play a triton, why not accommodate the player and replace sea elves with tritons?. By your own admission, you feel that the races occupy the same niche.

It depends on how well developed the setting is whether that is easy to do. On a fresh sketchy setting it might not be a problem, on more established setting it wouldn't work. Also, the player probably should consider playing that setting's aquatic species instead of asking for a slightly different one that doesn't exist in that world.

Also, I choose tritons as an example for a reason: the argument had been made that many races was unrealistic because the would compete among each other and wipe each other out. This argument does not apply to tritons who occupy a different niche than most humanoids.

Sure, aquatic species is a logical niche to have.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I respectfully disagree. The word's definition is consistent, but just like many words, its connotation can vary based on the person using it. This seems like a blanket statement for, "I don't disagree with what they disagree about, so I won't try to understand."

These aren't fighting words. I am just merely pointing out what I see. Rebuttals are fully welcomed and will be considered sincerely.

I think @Vaalingrade ‘s point, which is a reasonable one, is that the definition of “verisimilitude” isn’t consistent.

The people who raise “verisimilitude” arguments to sideline fighters or to argue that 20 different races is unrealistic, never raise it when it comes to the existence of dragons (let alone their being able to fly), or the fact that most settings have underground dungeons.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It depends on how well developed the setting is whether that is easy to do. On a fresh sketchy setting it might not be a problem, on more established setting it wouldn't work. Also, the player probably should consider playing that setting's aquatic species instead of asking for a slightly different one that doesn't exist in that world.

Well, to go back to your example (merfolk vs. Tritons vs. Sea elves vs. Water genasi), just because the DM views them as interchangeable, doesn’t mean the player does. So why does the player have to adapt if he cares but the DM doesn’t?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, to go back to your example (merfolk vs. Tritons vs. Sea elves vs. Water genasi), just because the DM views them as interchangeable, doesn’t mean the player does. So why does the player have to adapt if he cares but the DM doesn’t?

Neither has to adapt and no one is forcing people with incompatible preferences to play together.