D&D General I finally like non-Tolkien species for PCs

[EzekielRaiden]

Does anyone have contact info for the RPG police? Because I have some reports.

Have you polished and realigned your scrying orb?

 

[Mind of tempest]

I am honestly considering if this is the optimal possible setting species list.

human the base line
elves
dwarves
dragonborn
a second furry race
out there option number one
out there option number two.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I am honestly considering if this is the optimal possible setting species list.

human the base line
elves
dwarves
dragonborn
a second furry race
out there option number one
out there option number two.

personally i'd fill those slots out with goblins/hobs, grung (if they could drop the water dependency) and genasi,

goblins are a small species and i think are too iconic to not include,

grung are a bit of a wildcard pick but as an aquatic animal species i think can have their own niche here in this lineup, (also a second small species)

genasi are a high-magical species which offer versatility with their different elemental variations.

 

[Mind of tempest]

personally i'd fill those slots out with goblins/hobs, grung (if they could drop the water dependency) and genasi,

goblins are a small species and i think are too iconic to not include,

grung are a bit of a wildcard pick but as an aquatic animal species i think can have their own niche here in this lineup, (also a second small species)

genasi are a high-magical species which offer versatility with their different elemental variations.

Goblins are iconic as cannon fodder and would take work to reformat into something more fitting, not that it is a bad idea to do that more that it would need to be done

Something aquatic could work, but grung would need work

Genasi do not work as a major species as they are just mixed human, it needs something more iconic

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I won't, and I hope you don't call them on anyone else either.

There is no badwrong in fun, and it has lots of different faces.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

my point is that for teiflings it is irrational for them not to be mostly human unless they are derived from a different base.

However, your point existed more out of a lack of definition, the other options are harder to rp as they are less defined thus if they where better defined, you would likely have less of an issue.

Possibly. But in most games, different races simply manifest amplified aspects of human traits and psychology, with different skins and possibly some mechanical odds and ends. And my players are pretty adept at taking simple humans to many different places roleplaywise, including lofty treehuggers and grumpy miners. Or grumpy treehuggers and lofty miners.

But then there is lore. I have a player that has been soaking in dwarven lore for decades, and of course I don’t mind him playing a dwarf in Forgotten Realms, Warhammers Old World etc. He can roleplay a beliavable dwarf, and his deep knowledge adds a lot of depth and fun to those campaign. On the opposite end, we have a severe lack of lore for ghost fairies, which contributes to why neither me nor my players are interested in that. I think this is what you mean with definition.

It’s just how me and my players find fun in rpgs, and there is no wrong way

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I am honestly considering if this is the optimal possible setting species list.

human the base line
elves
dwarves
dragonborn
a second furry race
out there option number one
out there option number two.

Why those? And what do you mean by "out there"?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Why those? And what do you mean by "out there"?

out there means something much more high-concept, something weird

As for why
humans are like the bread of the sandwich, largely boring but providing structure and some familiarity to the setting.
elves are grace they add an ethereal quality and have long had supporters
dwaves are enduring, although no longer as popular, they still stand as a mighty pillar
dragonborn a fresh blood might warriors with a bit of inbuilt magic, they are good for people who want to be somewhat monstrous, who love warrior classes or are interested in cha classes or just furries.
all the above are great for build endless lost relics, dungeons and cites all of which are key to a decent game of dnd.

Would you like me to go into the other slots

 

[Paul Farquhar]

out there means something much more high-concept, something weird

I would define it as not a mammalian humanoid. So Thi-Kreen, Centaurs, Dragonborn, plasmoids, warforged, lizard folk, etc

elves are grace they add an ethereal quality and have long had supporters

I associate "long lifespan" with elves. They definitely aint ethereal, and as for supporters, that depends on the age and culture of your players,

dwaves are enduring, although no longer as popular, they still stand as a mighty pillar

Pillar of what exactly?

dragonborn a fresh blood might warriors with a bit of inbuilt magic, they are good for people who want to be somewhat monstrous, who love warrior classes or are interested in cha classes or just furries.

ASIs are no longer part of the game. They are mostly for people who see dragon in the title and so want to play one. But they also fill the "not a mammalian humanoid" slot and are a little cooler than lizardfolk. But like elves and dwarves I wouldn’t consider them a “must have”.

 

[Emerikol]

This seems a matter of taste. I think the debate I suppose is what is in the PHB and thus considered default without DM approval. I always send out a packet that sets up all of these decisions for the campaign ahead of time so the PHB doesn't matter all that much to me. Still, if I were WOTC, I wouldn't have kept integrating all the additional new races into every campaign setting. I'd just keep creating new settings and mixing and matching.