How much is too much (Race Bloat)

[Glade Riven]

Pathfinder's optional alternative racial traits work mechanically better than how 3e handled it, but I guess that's just the semantics of the mechanics. The same issues can happen as with introducing all-new races. Forgotten Realms at one point had Sun, Moon/Silver, Drow, two types of aquatic, Avariel (one of two races of Winged elf in 3e), Dark (former/redeemed drow), Lythari (werewolf elves), Star/Mithral, Wild/Green, Wood/Copper/Sylvan, and probably a few that I'm forgetting. There are a few more in other 3.5 books. Mechanically, 4e cleans this up a lot and for that I'm thankful. Thanks to most of those elvin variants not being OGL, Pathfinder has kept it fairly clean, too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't mind the creation of new player character races, but I'd never allow all of them, just a select few that best fit a particular campaign.

Bingo!

Dasuul
I would rather have five flavors of elf than have elves, dragonborn, gnomes, warforged, and wilden.

I'm pretty much the other way around...with a few exceptions. Beyond 2-3 subspecies, I start getting annoyed.*

If I were running an ElfQuest campaign, there'd be elven subspecies everywhere, for instance.

And if, instead of "elves" we were discussing "fey", I could go for a variety of fey, including elves, wilden, pixies, etc., that were different enough to be truly distinct, yet sharing certain common traits.










* not annoyed enough not to choose one in someone ELSE'S campaign, though.

 

[Kaodi]

There is only good or bad. There is no too many. - Kaoda

 

[Glade Riven]

...it's the desire to convert every such concept into a self-breeding race.

Or, more appropriately, into a self-breeding race that can be a PC. Kinda like some players that want to cross-class into 15+ different classes under 3.5. I think the max I would allow is 4, and that would have to be one heck of a character concept (3.5 has a lot of 5 level prestige classes).

When I first started working on Phaetos, I did feel the need to define how every playable race in Pathfinder had a place - but that concept did get bloaty real fast and I've moved away from it. There may be a playable monster race book at some point for fun, but I want to get through the first book before creating that.

 

[The Shaman]

Humans, lizard men, and intelligent apes.

Anything else is superfluous to me.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm a big proponent of DM creative control, but also allowing as much player choice as possible within that context. In other words, design the world you want to design but keep in mind the fun factor for your players. Also, even if you don't want a certain race in your setting, if a player really wants to play that race, think of a way that it could happen. For instance, when I started a 4E campaign a couple years back, I created a setting that didn't include dragonborn or tieflings. One of my players, of course, wanted to play a dragonborn. I let it happen, but with the caveat that he was essentially one of a kind--he was from some unknown far-off land and only a few travelers existed in the campaign region.

I also agree with Kaodi--quantity, either many or few--does not equate with quality. For an example of a great setting that utilizes tons of different races effectively, check out Talislanta.

 

[Shadus]

Whenever I do world building, I always hate writing fluff on races. I mean yeah, there are always a few races that pop out and help add to the world around them, but some are just a pain in the butt. For example, I have never been able to come up with good fluff for Teiflings. Not that I dislike them or anything, they're just hard to fit into a world without Bel-...Whatever. And that's a PH1 race...

I'm against taking options away from a player that would make them happier with their character (This happened to me once. It sucked.) but at the same time, some race just don't quite fit in the core idea of certain settings. Now whenever I do race fluff I only cover PH1 races and any other races that really help the world come to life. If a player comes to me and asks, Hey, can I play a Wibblydobblydo? I reply sure, as long as you justify/reskin it to the setting. In writing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There are only ever five races (maybe six).

But, you can have multiple races that fill those slots.

So the "strong guy" in D&D is typically a dwarf, but you can also have dragonborn, or goliaths, or minotaurs, or half-giants. The caveat is that putting all of those together reduces the design space for the dwarf, making them less unique. So choosing ONE and running with it is generally preferable. Not that the others can't be there, in the wings.

It's also true that this is only mostly a problem for DMs who focus a lot of energy on world-building. In a party, all you have to do is make sure there aren't two people filling the same role. It doesn't matter if there are all of those "strong guy" races, as long as the party only has one strong guy (of that race or not). You could have a party full of dwarves, as long as their archetypes were all different. In play, the character differences are much more key than racial distinctions.

 

[Mercurius]

Kamikaze Midget, I'm not sure that those tropes fit racial archetypes. I mean, the general idea works but the Five-Man Band characteristics don't really apply to fantasy races.

In many ways modern fantasy/RPG races are rooted in Tolkien, who in turn drew from European mythology. In Tolkien, you happen to have five or so races: humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, and orcs; with ents, dragons, giant eagles, and such fitting more into the "monster" category. Only humans and elves are "true" races in that they were created by Iluvatar the One; dwarves were a lesser creation by a lesser deity; halfings were seemingly a de-evolution from humans; and orcs were akin to a genetic manipulation of elves by Morgoth, the adversarial god.

BTW, the term "gnome" actually existed in Tolkien's design work; it was a word that he used for the Noldor race of elves that were the great craftsmen and warriors of the elves; I'm not sure why he dropped it (but I'm glad he did).

You could also look at the three basic archetypes that you see in Star Trek, with Kirk, Spock, and Bones. Kirk is the "hero"--the man who balances his passions with intellect, but whose courage and resourcefulness is ultimately his greatest strength; Bones, on the other hand, is all passion and emotion, and Spock is all intellect--so the two exist as polarities on either side of Kirk. To some degree this is true of dwarves (Bones) and elves (Spock), although they could be used in different ways.

I do think that the three main archetypal fantasy races are humans, elves, and dwarves. All other races are "lesser" in that they can be seen to come from those three lineages. You have dwarves as truly earthly, elves as heavenly or "super-earthly", and humans in the middle.

 

[AeroDm]

I think the answer varies a lot depending on the goal of races in your game (or for the player making the decision). For example, I've encountered many players throughout the years who wanted to play "weird stuff." If all they could play was human, then they were going to have some weird genetic issue to be purple. They just wanted to be weird no matter what. For them, I think variety is important and trying to reign them in actually ruins their fun.

For most players, though, I think races are primarily a vehicle to confer a bundle of powers on the character. That's actually a useful thing in my opinion--powers have to come from somewhere and having them come from race lets us un-frontload classes and allow greater diversity and customization. If that's the role, though, then the narrative stuff (description, culture, how they act, etc) actually becomes an unnecessary complication on the bundle of powers. If I want +2 dex and you're telling me that in order to get it I have to be "fanciful and not serious" then we have an issue if I don't want to RP that. It is an unnecessary conflict.

In the second scenario, we'd be better off decoupling the bundle of powers from the narrative aspects of race and just create templates or something (i.e. military upbringing, streetrat, etc). Then people are free to be a member of whatever race they desire and take on whatever role they desire without having to compromise on how they perform in other situations. Converting most races into background templates would be as easy as changing the name (with a few outliers due to size, innate magic, etc).