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

[Scott Christian]

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.

It has been raised though. In my own setting, dragons are part elemental, thus their ability to fly is magical. Prior to that, I had dragons that were more pterodactyl in nature, bird bones and all. A super light, yet durable skin is what helped with their AC. My underground dungeons used to be limited, and included things for ventilation and a somewhat believable ecosystem. Now, there aren't any dungeons, just mines and caves.

I have seen many other DMs make similar setting choices, all in the name of verisimilitude.

I feel like one of the reasons people like certain fantasy books are the logical underpinnings of the world. Are worlds with no logical underpinning fun? Of course. I love them too. But, to say because you use the word for X, yet ignore Y, does not invalidate the X. I think that is what is often missing from these discussions.

 

[Scott Christian]

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?

Sorry to interject, but can you just agree with @Crimson Longinus that there are levels to this. If I worked on a setting for several years, and finally came to a place where I feel comfortable bringing it to players, in part, because it is fully fleshed out - why on earth would the very first choice of a player be to change this? It seems rude, or at best, ignorant?
Now, on the other hand, most campaigns don't have a world as fleshed out as this. And in those cases, yes, the DM should accommodate. It doesn't matter what they want to be because the geopolitical/resource/cultural/racial/geographical ideas have not been set into motion. This means open season for player choices.
I would add that each of these campaigns runs very differently. The former being a story based on character connections to the world and how their choices impact those connections. The latter being a story based on character motives and their connection to the plot. Of course, it is hazy and there is cross-pollination. But if I had to summarize, this has been my experience.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Sorry to interject, but can you just agree with @Crimson Longinus that there are levels to this. If I worked on a setting for several years, and finally came to a place where I feel comfortable bringing it to players, in part, because it is fully fleshed out - why on earth would the very first choice of a player be to change this? It seems rude, or at best, ignorant?

I think both sides of the debate are in agreement. I don't see anybody disagreeing that it's within the rights of the author of the setting to say what fits inside (be it the GM or a setting designer -- there are no tinker gnome in Lyonesse, but maybe some kind of fae would fit?) and that the GM should be clear about it if he intends to put forth restrictions on players. I think the point that is being discussed is when the GM hasn't put a lot of thoughts about it and naysay "for the sake of naysaying" or fail to communicate why a player option is denied. Maybe there is a disagreement on whether the answer "because it doesn't fit my aesthetic choices for this campaign world" is acceptable, but I'd say then, it's a case of GM and players agreeing that each other's style isn't for them, much like a GM and players would agree not to play together if the GM was proposing a campaign around a theme that doesn't interest the players.

Bad experience stems from mismatched expectations, like a GM naysaying without explanation or being all passive agressive about players marring his setting with their stupid half-loxodon, half-gnome of draconian descent when a player simply asks whether he can play a goliath, or like the players trying to get the most bizarre option without ever inquiring about the setting (for optimization reasons, perhaps) and being infuriated about any restriction even being suggested. I think 99.9% of situations fall in the reasonsable middle.

It is probably something that is best sorted when discussing on what game to run (or "session 0" as the fancy name goes).

 

[Scott Christian]

At one point I allowed anything, but after some bad experiences decided that to have a short list of allowed races. Honestly, it's incredibly rare that race really matters to PCs when it comes to the game.

I think this point could really be expanded upon.

For many players, race matters to their character's backstory and for boons that synergize with class. That's it.

Until...

That player actually plays that race in a setting where it matters. Then suddenly the world opens up and they can feel its impact on their character, for good or bad. They can also feel the impact of other races, again, for good or bad. It is literally the DM using a tool for storytelling. Most players I have seen this happen to are surprised at its impact on their character arc and appreciate it.

But it is not for everyone and not for many campaign styles. But it is one of the most powerful tools a DM has for worldbuilding.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah. As a general rule you get three types of elves, one or maybe two types of dwarves, and one (or maybe two if you're very lucky) types of halflings, at absolute maximum.

OneD&D is even pondering getting rid of dwarves and halfling subraces because they are so similar and have only ignorable cultural differences.

But the thing is the species actaully aren't that physically distinct.

No they are physically distinct. DMs just don't enforce it. And fans try to cut those rules out

And that's why many players turn to extreme races. Ones where the world and DM have to acknowledge the difference.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think both sides of the debate are in agreement. I don't see anybody disagreeing that it's within the rights of the author of the setting to say what fits inside (be it the GM or a setting designer -- there are no tinker gnome in Lyonesse, but maybe some kind of fae would fit?) and that the GM should be clear about it if he intends to put forth restrictions on players. I think the point that is being discussed is when the GM hasn't put a lot of thoughts about it and naysay "for the sake of naysaying" or fail to communicate why a player option is denied. Maybe there is a disagreement on whether the answer "because it doesn't fit my aesthetic choices for this campaign world" is acceptable, but I'd say then, it's a case of GM and players agreeing that each other's style isn't for them, much like a GM and players would agree not to play together if the GM was proposing a campaign around a theme that doesn't interest the players.

Bad experience results in mismatched expectations, like a GM naysaying without explanation or being all passive agressive about players marring his setting with their stupid half-loxodon, half-gnome of draconian descent when a player simply asks whether he can play a goliath, or like the players trying to get the most bizarre option without ever inquiring about the setting and being infuriated about any restriction even being suggested. I think 99.9% of situations fall in the reasonsable middle.

It is probably something that is best sorted when discussing on what game to run (or "session 0" as the fancy name goes).

Totally agree. A GM that just naysays to naysay without having the rest in place should learn to accommodate.

I feel like this is what session zero is for; the DM details their setting and restrictions (if any), and the players detail their characters and backstories.

 

[R_J_K75]

In the 2E/3E days I liked more races and options, Nowadays not at all. I prefer to restrict races in 5E to the standard PHB races, as a matter of fact I would prefer if dragonborn and Tiefining were optional races again. IIRC I think there were 4-5 races listed as common, the rest were considered uncommon. I never liked what started in 3E that said let the Players create whatever PC they want. I liked 1E and 2E approach that players had to meet some prerequisites to create characters with certain combos of abilities. For instance, if a player wanted to play a dragonborn but are considered uncommon, say they make up 7% of the races in the world, then there should be some roll the player should have to succeed to play that race. It would make it special and rewarding when they actually get to play or encounter one.

 

[Minigiant]

That player actually plays that race in a setting where it matters. Then suddenly the world opens up and they can feel its impact on their character, for good or bad. They can also feel the impact of other races, again, for good or bad. It is literally the DM using a tool for storytelling. Most players I have seen this happen to are surprised at its impact on their character arc and appreciate it

I think this is a place where D&D has fell behind other games.

Video games, card games, and some other RPG have sped past D&D and D&D clones on the racial front. Racial biology, psychology, history, and culture are pushed to the background and diluted if not outright ignored.

But so many Dungeon masters, Designers, and World builders put so emphasis of the racial array only for them to ignore them.

It's to the point where the majority of fans can't tell you the difference between a mountain dwarf and a hill dwarf other than Mountain and Hill. Bioware Blizzard, and Games Workshop did more for dwarves, elves, and gnomes than TSR and WOTC.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

At least from the numbers available to me, human population in 1000 BC was roughly 40-50 million. Even if we assume an outsized figure at 60 million, and there would need to be 100 different races all at 60 million worldwide for us to hit the 6 billion mark.

Wikipedia says 50m to 115m, so I went with 100m.

As a general rule, the "standard" D&D setting is more or less High Middle Ages--it has schizotech imported from the middle to late Renaissance, but overall that's where it lands. The best data I have is for 1200 or 1250, which is roughly in the middle of the High Middle Ages (1000-1300), which peg world population at about 400 million people. Even if we assume 50% of those are human and 25% are some kind of elf, dwarf, or halfling, that's still 100 million people to spread out between the remainder. I count approximately 54 races (excluding variants), others count 68; let's call it 60 "non-Tolkien" races for ease of math.

100 million divided amongst 60 races is still ~1.66 million apiece. The largest cities in the world in the 1200s had approximately 1 million people. If we assume each of these 60 races has ~900,000 members of their population living in their "capital city" (which would be an enormous, bustling metropolis for this period, one engaged in substantial international trade!), that would leave ~760,000 to spread out into other cities around the world. That's more than enough for migrant populations to show up in the larger "Tolkien race"-dominated cities, and for there to be at lease loose general knowledge thereof even in less urbanized areas (again, referencing things like the African samurai warrior, "Moors" in England, the Armenian enclave in Beirut, the Jewish diaspora, etc.)

Your post comes across like it’s arguing with me, but other than the initial prehistoric population number I think we are making the same general points.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It would make it special and rewarding when they actually get to play or encounter one.

Would it? Never has in my experience.