My grievance with D&D races

[Matthias]

What troubles me with D&D is how certain non-human races have become "standard" alternatives to playing a human as a PC. So much so, that "Human" has become the alternative. I can't think of the last time I have played or run a game in which everyone was a human (or even when the majority of the party were humans). Elves, dwarves, and halflings seem almost universally considered to be more "interesting". This in turn has translated into every incarnation and derivative of D&D (and even some that aren't, such as Shadowrun) having Tolkien's fantasy people becoming sacred cows whose inclusion in the standard ruleset can never be questioned. This extends to official settings of D&D and its derivative games--Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, Dragonstar, Golarion--if the standard elf, dwarf, halfling, et al seems worn-out then the solution is to do a refit of the race and put a new spin on it. The term "obsession" is not quite the word I am looking for, but this tendency to accept these traditional races for granted as necessary to cement a game or setting's appeal to playerscustomers has become a nuisance to me.

This analogy may serve to illustrate my problem better: having to include Tolkien races in every d20 fantasy game and setting is like having to include Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi in a Star Wars, Buck Rogers, or Stargate SG-1 RPG just because those universes are sci-fi based and include many similar story elements such as getting to visit other planets, meet interesting aliens and kill them, and being able to make out with their beautiful females.


So, What I would like to see for D&D Next is a new position concerning "races": If it's not human, it's optional. Don't flood the character creation section of the rulebook with elves, other elves, other other elves, and dwarves (and reluctantly include humans). Start and end with humans as the norm, particularly for new players, and then bring in a nice variety of "alternative races" that can include the old standbys, without having the standard rules begin and end with them. I would earnestly like to see the new species from Races of Stone, Wild, Destiny, and Dragon elevated. The Goliaths, Illumians, and Raptorans were nice, and other options are worth considering such as lizardfolk, rakastas, lupins, muls, half-giants, and other seldom-remembered PCs from previously retired settings. All of these could be brought back. That's what I'd like to see.

 

[Sanglorian]

I think you and I probably use D&D in quite different ways. You seem to approach it as a toolbox for playing all sorts of fantasy games, whereas I see it as a set of rules for playing a narrow sub-genre of games.

Since you brought up Star Trek, I guess the closest analogy for me is Star Wars: when I pick up the Star Wars RPG, I have very clear expectations about what mood my game will be. Now, I might be playing in the Old Republic with no Ewoks, or well in the future with different Force adepts of my own invention, or playing before Episode IV but completely ignoring the prequels ... but even so, I'm still playing Star Wars, and not Star Trek or A Space Odyssey or anything like that.

Likewise, when I pick up D&D 5E, I'm going to be using it to play a narrow range of fantasy settings: Forgotten Realms, Golarion, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, that sort of thing. These settings share a lot of races, just as the different time periods in Star Wars share a lot of races. I don't want to use 5E to run Harry Potter, Tolkein or A Game of Thrones, and I doubt it would do a good job even if I tried. For those games, I'll try Boarsdraft, or The One Ring, or Polaris.

I think your approach is equally valid, and hopefully 5E will have room for both of us. But I wanted to explain why my perspective is different to yours.

 

[amerigoV]

What troubles me with D&D is how certain non-human races have become "standard" alternatives to playing a human as a PC. So much so, that "Human" has become the alternative.

Racist! I kid, I kid.


I have always contended that D&D is half a rule set and half a genre. And that mixing creates a lot of friction. For example, telling people you want to run a Conan game (only humans, no casters) is ok and people immediately visualize in their head the key concepts of the setting no matter the ruleset you want to use. Now try telling people you running a D&D game. Then when they show up you (as GM) say only humans are allowed, no casters as they are all NPCs, - that will get you a visceral reaction. When you say D&D, most people remotely familiar with D&D immediately visualize elves, dwarves, wizards, and other exotic things as many people have played in "kitchen sink" campaigns over the years.

 

[Kinak]

Since it's formation, D&D has never modeled most fantasy well. D&D fantasy is really its own sub-genre.

The races aren't even the biggest part of that split. One of the defining traits of most fantasy worlds is how magic works. And that, with few variations, is answered in the core books.

So, first and foremost, D&D needs to serve D&D fantasy well. And, frankly, the sub-genre includes elves, dwarves, and so on.

I don't particularly care for the standard races either, but they're the paints you need to recreate every classic D&D setting and most people's homebrews. Leaving them out would be a massive break with the history of D&D.

And, hey, if they don't include any weird races, more stuff for me to brew

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[delericho]

What troubles me with D&D is how certain non-human races have become "standard" alternatives to playing a human as a PC. So much so, that "Human" has become the alternative. I can't think of the last time I have played or run a game in which everyone was a human (or even when the majority of the party were humans). Elves, dwarves, and halflings seem almost universally considered to be more "interesting". This in turn has translated into every incarnation and derivative of D&D (and even some that aren't, such as Shadowrun) having Tolkien's fantasy people becoming sacred cows whose inclusion in the standard ruleset can never be questioned.

I sympathise, but... Simply put, the "big four" races are now sacred cows. Removing them (from core D&D) would be a horrible mistake.

Now, that said, I do agree that various settings shouldn't force themselves to always stick with those races - indeed, they should perhaps be quicker to drop them. One of the selling points of Eberron was "everything in D&D has a home in this world"... I'm not sure that's actually a good design goal.

This analogy may serve to illustrate my problem better: having to include Tolkien races in every d20 fantasy game and setting is like having to include Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi in a Star Wars, Buck Rogers, or Stargate SG-1 RPG just because those universes are sci-fi based and include many similar story elements such as getting to visit other planets, meet interesting aliens and kill them, and being able to make out with their beautiful females.

While that's true, I would expect an RPG based on any of those individual series to include non-human races. Moreover, if someone were to do a 'generic' sci-fi roleplaying game then I would expect it to include some sort of non-human races. It wouldn't be a deal-breaker if they were absent, of course, but it is something I'd expect to see.

(Actually, for a generic sci-fi RPG, I suspect I would expect to see some sort of "race toolkit"...)

So, What I would like to see for D&D Next is a new position concerning "races": If it's not human, it's optional. Don't flood the character creation section of the rulebook with elves, other elves, other other elves, and dwarves (and reluctantly include humans).

Now, I'm with you on the "elves, other elves, and other other elves"! IMO, the 4e PHB having three 'elfy' races out of a set of 8 was really quite absurd.

But for the rest... no thanks. For the core, provide the classics; with supplements provide lots of others, and I'll sort out what I want and don't want.

 

[Zaukrie]

Disagree, I see no reason why d and d must be human centric. I would like a book of pc races and how to build worlds that are different. In the core, I still want a couple of races that are not the standard.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ratskinner]

(Actually, for a generic sci-fi RPG, I suspect I would expect to see some sort of "race toolkit"...)

I sometimes wonder if the "Advanced" rules (or modules or whatever) shouldn't have this for D&D.

 

[am181d]

Given that the goal of 5e is inclusion, I expect you'll see a lot of "the thing that most players do is the default, and the thing that a lot of players do is a module, and the thing that a few players do you can work out for yourself as always."

That said:

D&D is the biggest tabletop RPG (and, by extension, the biggest fantasy RPG). I'd really like to see the game evolve to cover a broader range of fantasy themes and play styles. So you could still have your traditional D&D Elves and Vancian Magic game, but you could also do something more Game of Thronesy or Lord of the Ringsy or even Harry Pottery.

Yes, there are smaller, niche RPGs that cover some of the same territory, but why should the 800 pound gorilla be ceding ANY ground?

 

[delericho]

Given that the goal of 5e is inclusion, I expect you'll see a lot of "the thing that most players do is the default, and the thing that a lot of players do is a module, and the thing that a few players do you can work out for yourself as always."

Very likely.

D&D is the biggest tabletop RPG (and, by extension, the biggest fantasy RPG).

Actually, this is incorrect. Pathfinder has been outselling D&D's tabletop offering for a couple of years now, quite significantly so in the second half of last year.

Yes, there are smaller, niche RPGs that cover some of the same territory, but why should the 800 pound gorilla be ceding ANY ground?

There's a really strong argument for doing fewer things, but doing them really well. If you can kinda-sorta do anything, but for each specific thing there is a better dedicated tool, then you may well find that people ignore the generalist and instead pick up the specialist tools that suit them. This is especially true if some or all of those specialist tools are largely compatible, if for example they're all d20-based.

Sort of like the way you could build an adventuring party out of jack-of-all-trades, but you're generally better having everyone specialise in a particular role so you can meet a variety of challenges.

 

[Angrydad]

Evidently you and I play with very different groups. Our current campaign is composed of 3 humans, 1 elf, and a half elf. My players use humans a lot because we all love us those extra skill points, and a bonus feat doesn't hurt either.