Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
And here they are... Official Human 'Subraces'
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SpiralBound" data-source="post: 1938937" data-attributes="member: 8396"><p>I can't quite tell if the original poster and a few of the others who replied are for or against human subraces? I suppose that if we're going to have hundreds of subraces of everything else, then I guess we may as well have them for humans too...</p><p></p><p>Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the style of subrace that basically follows the methodology of taking race "A" and applying generic descriptors "1" through "infinity". Take for instance the 1001 colours of Elves that exist. :\ grey elves, blue elves, black elves (not the underdark ones), smoke elves, green elves, red elves, <em>fushia, turquoise, and saffron elves</em>! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Or the exact same process just with terrain, environment or material templates, which is really only slightly better than colour coding them. forest elves, desert elves, mountain elves, aquatic elves, sky elves, dusk elves, shadow elves, fire elves, water elves, <em>mud, plaster and brick elves!</em> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>My point isn't that subtypes shouldn't exist, it's just that they should exist <u>for a good setting related reason.</u> More and more, it seems that some of the subraces that get created are made to justify a "kewl" race name or to "complete the set" so to speak. <em>("Oh! Oh! We haven't made highway Elves yet! A highway is part of the landscape, right?")</em></p><p></p><p>The original Dark Elves made sense in the setting that they first appeared in due to the history of that specific setting that they were a part of, similarly so for Sylvan and High Elves. Now however, it seems that almost EVERY setting has these and many many more types of Elves, Gnomes, Dwarves, etc. <em>Sometimes</em> the setting makes a very good case for justifying them. Sadly though, in most cases they don't and it's obvious that they were added to appease the expectations of the average gamer.</p><p></p><p>I'd much rather have subraces that make sense for the setting that they're a part of, that have a more cultural and historical basis for their physical and mental distinctions, rather then just an excuse to give say, a breath weapon to an Orc cause you think it's "Kewl".</p><p></p><p>I know that there are some good settings out there that don't do this, but I'm talking about the majority that don't. As for a race book <em>(human or otherwise)</em> that simply splatters it's pages with a bunch of disconnected subraces that don't technically belong in any intrinsic way to a specific setting... Well, like I said in the begining of this rant, once you decide to have as many random flavours of subraces as you can, then yet another subrace book is a good thing... :\ The only valuable application I can see for such a book is to allow a GM to use one or two races from it that fit the concept and style of his setting, or more likely as an inspiration in making his own. However, once you consider just how many such race books there actually are out there in print right now, and temper that consideration with what the average gamer's response is to the seemingly neverending tide of yet another "crunch-filled" book of rules expansions without any real setting-specific flavour attached, and it becomes obvious that what is most likely to happen is that all of these subraces will be accepted as "canon" for all settings without any consideration for their suitability or degree of sensibility.</p><p></p><p>Again, I know that there are many gamers out there that DON'T blindly act that way. In fact, many of the people who I see post here in these forums I would consider to be gamers who put a great deal more thought into their gaming decisions than I'm implying here. Still, a recent stat I read <em>(here in this forum actually)</em> stated that there are approx. 4 million gamers these days and I know that they don't all post here! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I hate to be so negative, but I'm seeing more and more books getting published these days "just because".</p><p>[sarcasm]</p><p>It's almost as though the marketing departments are the only ones calling the shots when it comes to deciding what will get written next... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious :]" data-shortname=":]" /> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></p><p>[/sarcasm]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SpiralBound, post: 1938937, member: 8396"] I can't quite tell if the original poster and a few of the others who replied are for or against human subraces? I suppose that if we're going to have hundreds of subraces of everything else, then I guess we may as well have them for humans too... Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the style of subrace that basically follows the methodology of taking race "A" and applying generic descriptors "1" through "infinity". Take for instance the 1001 colours of Elves that exist. :\ grey elves, blue elves, black elves (not the underdark ones), smoke elves, green elves, red elves, [i]fushia, turquoise, and saffron elves[/i]! :) Or the exact same process just with terrain, environment or material templates, which is really only slightly better than colour coding them. forest elves, desert elves, mountain elves, aquatic elves, sky elves, dusk elves, shadow elves, fire elves, water elves, [i]mud, plaster and brick elves![/i] ;) My point isn't that subtypes shouldn't exist, it's just that they should exist [u]for a good setting related reason.[/u] More and more, it seems that some of the subraces that get created are made to justify a "kewl" race name or to "complete the set" so to speak. [i]("Oh! Oh! We haven't made highway Elves yet! A highway is part of the landscape, right?")[/i] The original Dark Elves made sense in the setting that they first appeared in due to the history of that specific setting that they were a part of, similarly so for Sylvan and High Elves. Now however, it seems that almost EVERY setting has these and many many more types of Elves, Gnomes, Dwarves, etc. [i]Sometimes[/i] the setting makes a very good case for justifying them. Sadly though, in most cases they don't and it's obvious that they were added to appease the expectations of the average gamer. I'd much rather have subraces that make sense for the setting that they're a part of, that have a more cultural and historical basis for their physical and mental distinctions, rather then just an excuse to give say, a breath weapon to an Orc cause you think it's "Kewl". I know that there are some good settings out there that don't do this, but I'm talking about the majority that don't. As for a race book [i](human or otherwise)[/i] that simply splatters it's pages with a bunch of disconnected subraces that don't technically belong in any intrinsic way to a specific setting... Well, like I said in the begining of this rant, once you decide to have as many random flavours of subraces as you can, then yet another subrace book is a good thing... :\ The only valuable application I can see for such a book is to allow a GM to use one or two races from it that fit the concept and style of his setting, or more likely as an inspiration in making his own. However, once you consider just how many such race books there actually are out there in print right now, and temper that consideration with what the average gamer's response is to the seemingly neverending tide of yet another "crunch-filled" book of rules expansions without any real setting-specific flavour attached, and it becomes obvious that what is most likely to happen is that all of these subraces will be accepted as "canon" for all settings without any consideration for their suitability or degree of sensibility. Again, I know that there are many gamers out there that DON'T blindly act that way. In fact, many of the people who I see post here in these forums I would consider to be gamers who put a great deal more thought into their gaming decisions than I'm implying here. Still, a recent stat I read [i](here in this forum actually)[/i] stated that there are approx. 4 million gamers these days and I know that they don't all post here! :D I hate to be so negative, but I'm seeing more and more books getting published these days "just because". [sarcasm] It's almost as though the marketing departments are the only ones calling the shots when it comes to deciding what will get written next... :] :p [/sarcasm] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
And here they are... Official Human 'Subraces'
Top