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

[Vaalingrade]

Apropos of nothing, "Drawmij's Instant Census" comes to mind.

 

[TwoSix]

Which it is for PCs not from those places... If they discover them, the are fanciful.

However, if one PC is a Harengon, they would be like, "What's the big deal? It's just home."

That is what I mean when I say having too many races makes it less fanciful for me, just like having a spellcaster in every hamlet or every housekeeper in a town knowing the mending cantrip makes magic less "magical". Such things are no longer special in any way, and become mundane with over use.

I think that just speaks as to how one uses races as a tool in the creation of the setting. To me, I see race first and foremost as a player-facing tool. It's giving them options to express their vision for a character by choosing from various aesthetics. To a lot of players, those aesthetics are VITALLY important. I've had players get tremendously excited over having an owlin or a fairy or a harengon as a new character concept.

Once my players have chosen their races, that's when I start to worldbuild around them. Races that characters don't pick can be used to worldbuild elements I think are interesting, and the rest are simply backburnered and not mentioned unless a new PC gets created that wants to utilize them. That's when the "remote village" backstory can be easily applied.

 

[Slit518]

Do I like a lot of race options in my game? Including sub-races are part of one race?

Probably 12-18 to choose from being my sweet spot.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Once my players have chosen their races, that's when I start to worldbuild around them

Which is cool, but as nearly permanent DM I go the other way: the world is there, choose from what is in it. I don't want to recreate worlds for each new group and I've been using the same game world for decades now.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Or I like many classes too. I'm double weird.

 

[TwoSix]

Which is cool, but as nearly permanent DM I go the other way: the world is there, choose from what is in it. I don't want to recreate worlds for each new group and I've been using the same game world for decades now.

I know, but that’s kinda why the OP question annoys me a bit. We should all be aware by now that the division between those who place setting first and those who put PCs first is a clear and consistent one within the community, and dependent largely on motivations of play that aren’t going to change.

The reason for so many races is to satisfy those who want different types of characters to play, and are easy to handle for DMs who put facilitating PCs at the center of play. If you put worldbuilding at the center of play, a lot of races is probably harder to accommodate unless you center your worldbuilding around that premise. It’s not a hard question to answer.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Or I like many classes too. I'm double weird.

Woah! you really are, huh? I mean, I always suspected it... but to finally have confirmation is like mind-blowing...

I know, but that’s kinda why the OP question annoys me a bit. We should all be aware by now that the division between those who place setting first and those who put PCs first is a clear and consistent one within the community, and dependent largely on motivations of play that aren’t going to change.

The reason for so many races is to satisfy those who want different types of characters to play, and are easy to handle for DMs who put facilitating PCs at the center of play. If you put worldbuilding at the center of play, a lot of races is probably harder to accommodate unless you center your worldbuilding around that premise. It’s not a hard question to answer.

Agreed. I'm not annoyed by the OP, since I see the point, but I do find it funny when one DM says "Hey, I only have 5 playable races in my game because that is what the world was built around" and someone challenges that with "How can you take away player fun/agency!?!"

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, but I guess that makes it more of a "can't be arsed to completely kill each other off"; which I suppose is still a form of coexistence

It isnt though. Its a matter of if the predators have the means to extend their power to a point where killing off their prey is possible.

Like humans can do to everything else, and eachother.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure why it's a necessity to have all of them with distinct cultures and long histories. Why can't the setting just have a ton of small enclaves, with most of the races just numbering a few hundred to few thousand individuals? The lost village of Harengon or the single treetop village of the fairy folk seems much more in keeping with standard fantasy tropes.

Yoy don't have to, of course, but I prefer some naturalism in my settings, fantasy or no. Helps with the verisimilitude and immersion that are my top priority in gaming.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that just speaks as to how one uses races as a tool in the creation of the setting. To me, I see race first and foremost as a player-facing tool. It's giving them options to express their vision for a character by choosing from various aesthetics. To a lot of players, those aesthetics are VITALLY important. I've had players get tremendously excited over having an owlin or a fairy or a harengon as a new character concept.

Once my players have chosen their races, that's when I start to worldbuild around them. Races that characters don't pick can be used to worldbuild elements I think are interesting, and the rest are simply backburnered and not mentioned unless a new PC gets created that wants to utilize them. That's when the "remote village" backstory can be easily applied.

I feel the opposite. Heritages are a worldbuilding tool, within which I will allow for player desires as much as it makes sense to me.