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

[EzekielRaiden]

What in the world are you on about?

The argument you presented was, albeit said in other words, "People who play nontraditional fantasy races rely on stereotypes and cliches in order to get by, because it's difficult if not impossible for humans to accurately portray xenofictional sapient beings. If, instead, you force players to play only traditional options, or even better force them to play only humans, then they will have to avoid stereotypes, because they won't be able to play all of those stereotype-laden fantasy races."

And my response was, again in other words, "Actually, you'll find that cliches and stereotypes are, in fact, extremely common regardless of what races you limit people to playing. Here's a list of several extremely common, and almost always extremely poorly-handled, stereotypical/cliche characters, all of which are almost always human, or failing that, one of the other traditional core four races."

I hate this sort of attitude. It comes up whenever I talk about the "bath after a long journey" thing (which I think is essentially the same issue). You don't need a Bennie or inspiration for pretending to be an elf. Ostensibly that's why you are playing an elf in an RPG. Don't get me wrong, I don't care if they are playing an elf in the elfiest way possible, but if they do they shouldn't expect rewards for doing so. Again: rpg.

Firstly, you're being rather disparaging. I would appreciate it if your "hate" for "this sort of attitude" didn't actually verge into disparagement.

More importantly, you seem to have read something much more nefarious into the post than is even remotely warranted. Notice how @Hussar explicitly mentioned "there are a lot of dms who will just cut taht sort of thing short or pretty much entirely ignore it." There's no need for there to be "a Bennie or inspiration for pretending to be an elf," though I grant that that would be a crude way to incentivize such behavior. Hussar, as far as I can tell, is asking, "Are you as DM actually supporting your players when they try to portray such things? Are you giving them positive feedback, recognizing their efforts (even if they fall short), and playing along with their portrayals/leveraging their ideas yourself? Or are you being dismissive toward their efforts, excising or interrupting them to 'move on' or the like, or completely ignoring/overriding their ideas without discussion?"

And I think these questions are extremely important to ask. I find that a lot--and I mean a LOT--of DMs accidentally teach their players to do exactly the things they DON'T want their players to do, because they fail to consider what incentives (or disincentives) they provide. I'm reminded of that thread from...a while back now, where a DM learned both they and their players were getting super frustrated due to an undiscovered communication error. That is, the DM would take out maps simply to have a visual aid for situations, regardless of whether combat was involved, but the players all mutually (and silently) assumed that if there was a map, it was a battle map, and thus a combat was inevitable, so they would prepare to fight and take pains to give themselves a better position before the "inevitable" fight broke out. This led to the DM thinking the players were just bored murderhobos rejecting all social encounters, and the players feeling like they were being put through a meatgrinder by a controlling DM.

I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if a significant number of people who think "playing fantastical races means you'll resort to cliches" don't realize that they've been incentivizing trite, cliched behavior from those races all along.

 

[Reynard]

A lot of RPGs have incentives and Skinner Boxes for cultivating certain play experiences. We may be playing an RPG, but getting XP for gold, for example, will reward certain player behaviors, goals, or objectives. Playing a RPG does not preclude in-game incentives for roleplaying.

That's true but I think it is on a different order. XP for gold is a tool to encourage a broadly impactful playstyle.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's true but I think it is on a different order. XP for gold is a tool to encourage a broadly impactful playstyle.

XP-for-elfiness is a tool to encourage a broadly impactful playstyle: taking your character's race seriously.

 

[Reynard]

The argument you presented was, albeit said in other words, "People who play nontraditional fantasy races rely on stereotypes and cliches in order to get by, because it's difficult if not impossible for humans to accurately portray xenofictional sapient beings. If, instead, you force players to play only traditional options, or even better force them to play only humans, then they will have to avoid stereotypes, because they won't be able to play all of those stereotype-laden fantasy races."

That isn't what I said. You regularly interpret any opinion that disagrees with you as some sort of personal attack. I don't know how to help with that, so it's best if I leave you to it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Does Fizban's not count as a lore book?

I did specify 'setting' in the next sentence, mostly because I'm not a fan of the 'this is how it works in all of D&D' stuff because it tends to brain poison people into throwing tantrums when homebrew happens.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That isn't what I said. You regularly interpret any opinion that disagrees with you as some sort of personal attack. I don't know how to help with that, so it's best if I leave you to it.

You explicitly said:

Try eliminating other races entirely. In fact, eliminate other cultures as well. You know what you need then, to create compelling characters (PC or NPC)? Actual characters.

By eliminating other races as playable options, you will force people to play "actual characters." This is false. Even if there are only humans, and those humans come from an absolute monoculture, you will not force people to play "actual characters."

Hence: you have made a direct and explicit connection between playing non-human races and not playing "actual characters," whatever (clearly disparaging) thing that means.

 

[Oofta]

I must be weird as I find xenofiction easy to write. It just takes longer as you can't have predisposed automatic reactions to characters and populations

Don't sell yourself short. There are many reasons you can be weird, no reason to limit yourself just to one.

 

[akr71]

My question is: does that appeal to you? Do you like a campaign world that has dozens or even hundreds of player option races? If so, why? What's the upside?

For my part, I feel like there's a point where it gets too Mos Eisley or Pirates of Dark Water. Not only does too many races kill the wonder of non-human characters, but I feel like they become mechanical shticks and themes and there's nothing otherwise distinct about the races as cultures. They are just humans with funny hats and stat bonuses.

I pretty much feel the same. To be honest, I'm pretty happy with keeping it at about a half dozen (humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, halflings, goblins). I do like the move away from 'half' ancestries and the ability to customize your lineage. However, I'm also not about to stand in the way of one of my players' fun, so if they really want to be one of the other published ancestries, I'm willing to work with them. I do caution them that they might be a unique creature though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

However, I'm also not about to stand in the way of one of my players' fun, so if they really want to be one of the other published ancestries, I'm willing to work with them. I do caution them that they might be a unique creature though.

Yep, when this happens to me, it could be the "you came through a rift from another world/dimension/whatever" and we make it work.

It often becomes that PC's reason for adventuring--if they want to find a way home.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You know what you get when you try to xenofic even the most basic deviation from humans? The Complete Book of Elves, AKA how to play your character utterly insufferably.

Heh heh. This right here tells me all I need to know about why you are disdainful of basic characterization... you've apparently been burned by other players in your games during the 2E era playing elves annoyingly.

That I can't help you with. If you've played with other people who annoyed you by using The Complete Book of Elves... then there's nothing I can say to change your mind. Which is fine... no biggie. It's no different than all the people who rant and rave about Kender or Drow Ranger players because they were burned by those specific people being annoying in their characterizations of those characters as well. You experienced what you experienced. It what it is. But it doesn't mean that all characterization should now be verboten because you're become gunshy in dealing with them.