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

[Micah Sweet]

Yea, but I don’t think it violates verisimilitude, as opposed to “unrealistic”, because there’s no reason to suppose humans in a different multiverse will function in the same manner as Earth humans.

It’s only a problem based on implicit assumptions one could carry into worldbuilding, basically. It’s just as easy to simply start with a “on this world, tolerance is the norm” premise for worldbuilding. Choosing that races will naturally not get along is a specific choice, not a default one.

True, but it is just as specific a choice as universal tolerance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, and with 60+ races or whatever, I would expect plenty of rivalries or even flat-out hatred.

It just doesn’t mean generic peasant is going to be like “it’s one of those weird dog people they talk about in the stories, let me get the pitchfork!” You CAN do that if that’s the aesthetic you want to provide, I have no problem with that. It just isn’t “more realistic” just because Earth humans functioned that way.

To be fair, realistic means more like reality.

 

[Mecheon]

Anthropomorphic snake people from Monsters of the Multiverse? A book a lot of DMs won't even have? Yeah, that's pretty out there for a "standard fantasy" world. They don't exist in my world, even as NPCs/monsters. I've run the same campaign world for decades, and if I were to allow for another race I'd find a place and story for them and they'd be allowable to anyone from then on. If I allowed an exception here and there, I'd have a kitchen sink campaign.

I'd argue snake men (which, let's be honest, is what Yuan Ti are at their heart, even if they've a bit of a trans-humanist bent to them) are common enough. Common enough I have Lego figures of 'em. Like, there are more Lego figures that could be used to represent Yuan-Ti then there are figures that could represent elves or orcs, and that's after the LotR and Hobbit lines

 

[Minigiant]

Edited for not reading carefully:
Not to mention various plane-touched, etc.

4 of the 12 free races in 5e is "one of your parents did it with a not human"

And the iconic Sorcerer is "Your great grandparent did it with a polymorphed dragon"

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Also…the oceans are so bio diverse it’s mind boggling. The idea there couldn’t be 20 sentient tool users in all the oceans of th world… the logic isn’t logicking.

 

[Mecheon]

On the ocean side the problem is the ones choosable are basically all the same. "Humanoid who can breathe water". Locathah are an exception, but Locathah have their whole "will die on regular adventures" problem, and their niche is also crammed between Kuo Toa and Sahuagin. Also the Kna if we're being specific but uh, I don't think they're going to be bringing back the 12 foot tall giant fish people any time soon for some reason

"Human but aquatic" is done. Give us pure street shark joys with.... An actual shark-person given sahuagin aren't that any more, the comedy of "Mermaid flops around on ground and has to snake her way to places", cecaelia for "Underwater octopus witch mermaid" and of course, the true option everyone wants, the end goal of all species: C R A B

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Whether you intend it or not it feels very dismissive when you state things like you do, like you have no respect for the DM's choices. That your preference matters more than theirs, even if it's an established world. My logic and reasoning is mine, I've created a world that as a ton of options that makes sense to me. It's an imaginary world so of course anything is possible. But I've thought about how my world works and how the races fit. I have a list of races that are logical to me. Is it also preference? Of course! That doesn't mean there isn't also logic behind my preference.

If I have a high magic cross-roads world or a ring world or regularly feature multi-dimensional traffic then logically, to me, kitchen sink makes more sense. Without those factors, they don't make sense to me.

Yes, you are reading too much into my comments.

I don’t care if a DM says no. If they don’t want to be inclusive and build a world with their players. DMs a hard job, I get it. I’m just more interested in playing with a DM that wants to work with me to build the world. Luckily I have that.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

True, but it is just as specific a choice as universal tolerance.

Well it is also heavily biased on our IRL experience. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[Hussar]

Nice to know you can brush off someone wanting to have a living, logical and consistent setting with several variations on ‘does it matter?’ And ignoring the actual point that all those questions were leading up to, the player doesn’t consider the world when they make what they want they just make it.

A player just wanting to crowbar in an entire settlement to a constructed world to facilitate their character seems akin to someone taking a marker to someone else’s painting because ‘well I thought it would look better with a tree there’

This pretty much says it all right here.

The dms world is a “painting” that the nasty bad players are vandalizing with a marker.

But, sure, it’s all about “believability “ and sense of wonder.

 

[Hussar]

When people talk about how diverse the world is now, I shutter. Do you really believe that? In some places, in modern times, maybe. But that wasn't the case so very long ago and it certainly IS NOT the case in many places in the world now. I've traveled enough to know. Yes, I can find tolerant people, but I also have meet a vast majority more who are NOT tolerant.

But, that's the issue. This reading of history that is very, very much not accurate. The world was, maybe not tolerant, but certainly very mixed. Trade and mixing was going on for a very, very long time. There were enclaves within virtually all port cities. And that's just what we know about. There most likely was far, far more mixing that's been buried by history for all sorts of reasons.

Good grief, I live in Japan, one of the most homogeneous populations in the world. Yet, they had two major peoples - Japanese and Ainu co-existing (relatively) peacefully until the 19th century. Genocide is a largely modern thing simply because before, people simply lacked the ability to actually wipe out other populations. Millennia of trade in the real world between pretty much everyone.

This idea that each group was largely homogeneous is ludicrous. Good grief, look at England. How many ethnic groups could you find by, say, 1200 AD? And, even with all those invasions, zero genocide. The invaders, like the Scandanvians, simply married into the population and became part of the people.