Thing with that is, hardly anyone wants to play it. Just look at Talislanta. Many people love the idea, but playing it? Nope. Too much reading to do on all the new races and animals which are hard to remember. One player told me that while it is a good concept, he wants to just be able to delve right into the game without hours of required reading. and for the GMs, it is the same. My planned Talislanta game is on the back burner because I never seem to find the time to read the books often enough to know the world well enough to run a game in it.
Knowing the basics (dwarfs are short and sturdy, elves have pointed ears etc) helps people to connect,even if a dwarf culture happens to shun beer over wine and lives on the mountains instead of under.
If you look at Talisantha and D&D, the main difference- besides "No Elves!", of course- is that Talisantha tries to pack all of the player races into one book. Going back to 2Ed, there are probably as many if not more races in D&D suitable for players' PCs right out of the MM (or other sourcebook) as are in Talisantha.
...it's just that most of them are optional. I mean, nobody uses ALL the races of the Underdark in their Underdark campaigns. And it isn't as if those running aquatic campaigns use Locathah, Sahuagin, Tritons, Aquatic Elves, Ixitxachitl, etc.
Ditto Spelljammer, Athas, and any other setting or subpart you can think of.
There simply isn't room.
So what you do is you pick out the core races and cultures that define your campaign world, and put in the work to give the players the details they need. Then, if that list is insufficient, let the players come to you:
"Is there something like ___________ in the campaign setting? I'd like to play something like this concept I have, and that race works well for it..."
And then work with them to flesh out their oddball. At that point, at least that player will definitely be buying in.
Last edited: