How much is too much (Race Bloat)

[AeroDm]

Well, there's no reason that the narrative attributes like "stout" have to port over. If I want the ability bundle of dwarf but the description of a 6-foot-6 desert nomad, that really doesn't break the game. It certainly distorts the traditional flavor of the dwarf, but if the game was balanced with that character described as short, stout, and underground, it should remain balanced when that character is described as something else.

My main point was that we need to understand why racial diversity is desired. If it is for the joy of variety, then you can never have enough. If (more likely) it is to acquire bundles of power that have everything you want for your character, then the "problem" of racial diversity is that it undermines the integrity of the world because races come with expectations of culture, appearance, and so on. If that's the case, why not just drop the narrative aspect that is causing all the trouble? For some campaigns I'm sure that'd be heresy, but in other campaigns folks are met with the very annoying task of rationalizing how in a stereotypical fantasy world a half-demon, a rock-person, a robot-person, and a human walk into a bar looking for work.

 

[gamerprinter]

My main point was that we need to understand why racial diversity is desired. If it is for the joy of variety, then you can never have enough. If (more likely) it is to acquire bundles of power that have everything you want for your character, then the "problem" of racial diversity is that it undermines the integrity of the world because races come with expectations of culture, appearance, and so on. If that's the case, why not just drop the narrative aspect that is causing all the trouble? For some campaigns I'm sure that'd be heresy, but in other campaigns folks are met with the very annoying task of rationalizing how in a stereotypical fantasy world a half-demon, a rock-person, a robot-person, and a human walk into a bar looking for work.

Well for me, always in designing new races the goal is LA 0 (no level adjustment) so it's pretty much impossible to build a 'powers bundle' making an overpowered race. I seek spice and variety and to appropriately capture the essence of a given race (often based on folklore beliefs).

For instance in designing my kappa race who are a water-based imp with some goblinoid features. I wanted a diminuitive race that was good at wrestling, has a special bone-breaking technique and is otherwise close to nature. I ended up with a race design that matches it, but still a CR 1/3 creature created. It uniquely fits it's intended role without being over-powered. And it's the same methodology that all my Kaidan races are based.

 

[Umbran]

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.

No, but you probably want to consider races understanding that the PCs are going to tend towards that kind of structure. While you can generally fill all the roles with only a single race, if you're going to have multiple fantasy races, there's probably going to be a strong tendency for the players to pick a race appropriate for the role (or specifically *not* appropriate, playing against type).

 

[KidSnide]

I think it's pretty clear that, to build a world, many (most?) GMs need to pick a set of dominant races. A Tolkien standard set is one variant, as is the PH1 set. However, I think the ability to pick and choose a custom set of dominant races is one of the major advantages of having such a large number of races in the game.

My question is what kind of advice to give newer GMs about picking a set of races? Figuring out what your players want to play seems like a good start. Picking races that are appropriate to the various terrains also seems logical. Using the PH1 and Eberron examples, it might also be appropriate to think about whether certain races should be associated with fallen civilizations or have otherwise lost their homeland. Mechanically speaking, it is also probably a good idea to look at the favored stats of the races you pick to make sure that you aren't accidentally favoring certain classes (or gimping classes you want played in the game).

Any other thoughts?

-KS

 

[steeldragons]

How much is too much (Race Bloat)?

10.

Options are great and all but choices for PC races really don't need to exceed 10 or 12.

The 7 Basic Core Races

• Human (preferably with multiple ethnic cultures)
• Elf (usually with multiple cultures and/or sub-species)
• Dwarf
• Halfling
• Gnome
• Half-elf
• Half-orc

3 "different"/rarer races
(For my own game world, these constitute the "Sylvan Races.")

• Centaur
• Satyr
• Sprite

Leaving you with 2 "slots", if you want, for the VERY different/"monster" and/or UNIQUE PC options.
(Again, in my own game/world...)

• Zepharim (homebrew winged humanoids)
• Lizardmen

Or any of your other favorite races of choice.

That is not to say other races/cultures/peoples don't exist...it is also not to say that these options are the "dominant" or most numerous creatures on the world...simply that they are an option for PCs.

There are plenty of drow...underground. No (in my games) you can't be one. If we were going to run an entirely "Underdark campaign" (meaning, of PCs from the Underdark) then sure, drow would probably be put on the table. [note to self...beginning planning a campaign with PC options in/from the underdark...]

Seems to me, if you have a 10 to 12 PC options there's got to be SOMEthing you can use to come up with a concept you are going to enjoy playing in there someplace.

I think once you get over 10 you're on the border. By the time you get to more than 12, you're well into Bloated territory.

Good luck and let us know what you decide...and why. I, for one, would be interested to see what you settle on.
--SD

 

[I'm A Banana]

Any other thoughts?

I feel like a bit of a broken record, but...

There are five people in an archetypal D&D group. There are five members of the usual five-man band. They fall into five main party roles. This is not a coincidence. It's a very useful psychological trick.

If I was going from zero, I'd say a DM should have about five races, and that those five races should be humans (as the Hero) + four others:

One that contrasts the humans. These might be evil underdark-dwellers, or violent orcs, or immortal elves, or robots, or angels, or whatever. They should be distinctly alien -- their otherness is the defining quality.

One that is very smart and tricky. These might be elves, or gnomes, or halflings, or ratmen, or a race of super-intelligent elephant-people, or whatever. They should be smart as a defining quality.

One that is very strong and tough. These might be dwarves, or half-orcs, or robots, or minotaurs, or earth elementals, or whatever. They should be tough as a defining quality.

One that is spiritual and wise. These might be elves, or gnomes, or pixies, or forest-unicorn maidens, or a race of ancient scholars, or whatever. They should be deep and meaningful as a defining quality.

With those five, you've got enough to cover the class archetypes snugly (smart = rogue; tough = fighter; wise = cleric; alien = wizard), with the humans left over to do everything.

Going through this process for my monotheistic campaign, and using 4e analogues, for instance, gives me:

Humans
Genasi (otherworldly spirits once tamed by poets, but now free)
Tieflings (fiend-touched humans given to great intelligence -- but often lost souls)
Warforged (golems created by a philosopher-civilization for protection and servitude)
Devas (god-touched humans given to great inspiration and a divine calling -- but often judgemental of lesser beings).

This is thus a very human-centric setting, influenced by a multitude of otherworldly sources, given to questions of souls, subtsnce, and morality (which fits with my Qur'anic/Biblical/Torah/Mysticism source material).

This doesn't limit the population, of course, it just gives me the primary focus for the game. If someone wanted to play a shardmind or whatever, I would have a place for it, I just would talk with the player about what place that is (in this setting, forex, it might be a specific type of golem created to assist the philosophers).

 

[gamerprinter]

Stuff...

I agree to a point, as stated pick those races that best fit a given campaign and limit them to those.

For example, in my campaigns the races: elf, half-elf, dwarf, gnome, and halfling generally do not exist - they just don't fit in flavor and role. Tolkienist races just do not belong.

For this reason, I select or create specific races for my given settings. There is no bloat, because the bulk of the base races as per Core do not exist. I still need a handful of races, and that's all I have available - just not necessarily the same races everyone else is using.

 

[LurkAway]

If I wanted to remove race bloat in a Star Trek RPG, I'd get rid of all the people in funny suits -- I'd reskin Klingons into a human warrior culture, Ferengi into merchant guild members, Vulcans into logical monks, and Romulans into a post-modern Roman empire. But this would mean killing sacred cows and inciting much trekkie rage.

In all fairness, I don't think D&D ever offered compelling human translations of elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. If it did, perhaps we'd know best if people really want to play elves or just want humans with the mechanical benefits of elves.

Are Tolkein races integral to D&D? If they were reskinned into compelling human archetypes (and then booted out as monster races of the Feywild) to make room for the newer core races (as many as the DM wants), would people buy into that as a mainstream option?

 

[KidSnide]

With those five, you've got enough to cover the class archetypes snugly (smart = rogue; tough = fighter; wise = cleric; alien = wizard), with the humans left over to do everything.

...

This is thus a very human-centric setting, influenced by a multitude of otherworldly sources, given to questions of souls, subtsnce, and morality (which fits with my Qur'anic/Biblical/Torah/Mysticism source material).

This is certainly a reasonable breakdown of racial roles, although I don't see why all these roles need to be handled by race. It seems to me that most of these "roles" could also be fulfilled by age, social class or personality.

Still, I wonder if this is putting too much emphasis on race. Sure, it's a "leg" of character creation, but I sometimes think that too many D&D characters simply adopt the social role / schtick of "I am a member of my race." You see a lot of characters who are little more than "a dwarf with an axe" or "a deva with holy magic."

Many races have compelling stories, so that's hardly a bad individual choice. That said, I tend to think that party dynamics are less compelling if everyone is playing that type of character. I tend to think that D&D parties are better off if at least half the characters are members of the same race. That way, the party dynamics can focus on another interesting axis such as nationality, social class, religion or some other loyalty or personality conflict.

-KS

 

[I'm A Banana]

Still, I wonder if this is putting too much emphasis on race.

Sure, you could use virtually anything in place of "race." Race is just a core element of the game for a while, and the topic of this thread specifically.

I tend to think that D&D parties are better off if at least half the characters are members of the same race. That way, the party dynamics can focus on another interesting axis such as nationality, social class, religion or some other loyalty or personality conflict.

Depends on what conflicts you want to highlight. There's no reason a fantasy world HAS to have elves as a PC, but the fact that there are elves, and that they are distinct from humans, gives one node of variety. If everything was human, you could make nationality or culture have a bigger impact.

Y'know, generally speaking, you don't "need" any races.