D&D General Playable races: few or plenty, common or variable, native or outsiders?

[beancounter]

Or it gives people the chance to play a turtle-man with a law degree and anger management issues.

Note: actual PC in my upcoming 5e campaign (tortle barbarian, background sage - law).

There's more to D&D than just pretending to be an elf, you know. Not every preference is a 'crutch'.

So, you're in favor of "anything goes" as long as the player claims it's their preference?

Can I play as an ancient red dragon in your campaign? I've always wanted to play an ancient dragon. It has nothing to do with it's power level.

 

[overgeeked]

1) Few or plenty?

Depends entirely on the setting, but I prefer a lot of race options, including the so-called monstrous races.

2) Common or variable?

Variable all the way. I’ve house ruled stat swaps for decades.

3) Native or outsiders?

Native, 100%. Nothing wrecks immersion like races or classes that don’t belong in a given setting.

Bonus question (kind of a combination of questions 2 and 3): how do you feel about using different versions of a race from different settings? Examples could be allowing Zendikar elves or Ravnica goblins (assuming you already have native elves or goblins), would you be ok with allowing the mechanical variant (i.e. different stats and abilities) from another setting? If you would allow the mechanic, would you disallow, allow or even require the narrative that the race comes from another world?

I prefer a single source, preferably the book for that setting. But using different write ups for the same race (as long as it’s appropriate to the setting) is fine.

 

[Mallus]

So, you're in favor of "anything goes" as long as the player claims it's their preference?

I’m in favor of gaming with people I’m happy to call friends and generally trusting them. Plus they’re a pretty creative bunch. Also, our new setting was designed (by me) to be the antithesis of the bare bones Basic D&D offered by our current Labyrinth Lord campaign. Therefore I leaned into the weird.

Can I play as an ancient red dragon in your campaign? I've always wanted to play an ancient dragon. It has nothing to do with it's power level.

That depends entirely on how creative and trustworthy you are .

(ie how willing you are to play an ancient red dragon de-powered for reasons)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Lots of talking about playable character races in the last year or two... what are your preferences regarding the following approaches? (You can specify whether you are answering from a player's or DM's point of view)

1) Few or plenty

Do you prefer having a small bunch of races available to PCs, such as the PHB set or a cherry-picked group of favourites? Or do you think a large array available is better? Or do you even think the sky's the limit and would like to have as many as you can find for the edition you're currently playing?

Usually many. If I restrict the number it’s in a final fantasy or Legend of Zelda style, where the is a little race, a big beefy race, a flying race, a water race, etc.

2) Common or variable?

Do you prefer a more monolithic approach on racial mechanics i.e. all PCs of the same race X or subrace Y must use the same stats, or do you like having mechanical variants for each race and/or subrace (without narrating them as a different group)?

That’s the main purpose of subraces and variants, for me. People vary, within a race. Tasha’s style customization also helps.

3) Native or outsiders?

Do you want playable races strictly from the fantasy setting you're adventuring in, or do you consent to PCs of a race that normally doesn't belong to it? This is a more nuanced question... you can make a distinction between the case of a race that belongs to the setting but not the world (like are you ok with PC races from the elemental or the outer planes) and the case of a race that belongs to a different setting entirely (like a Forgotten Realms race in Dark Sun) or even a different genre altogether (like a Star Wars or DCU race).

I stay in-genre. Wanna play a tabaxi in Ravenloft? Cool, as long as it’s a character you’d have in a fairly serious show, not a silly adventure time style show.

No grayliens in my Chivalric Romantic Fantasy.

Bonus question (kind of a combination of questions 2 and 3): how do you feel about using different versions of a race from different settings? Examples could be allowing Zendikar elves or Ravnica goblins (assuming you already have native elves or goblins), would you be ok with allowing the mechanical variant (i.e. different stats and abilities) from another setting? If you would allow the mechanic, would you disallow, allow or even require the narrative that the race comes from another world?

All those variants are great. Use Dragonmarked races to play a prodigy of a particular skill set. Play a Verdan as a rare bridge-species goblinoid. I saw a Verdan Warlock as a Nilbog once. Great stuff.

 

[Mecheon]

It seems a lot of those new races are just a crutch for new players or optimizers (e.g. the ability to fly and a high natural AC)

Honestly there were only 2 or 3 races outside of the vanilla bunch you'd go for optimisation, and those were the ones with the magic resistence. Satyrs and Yuan-Ti were optimiser choices, hence why they were nerfed. Aarakocra flight was not up there when you could instead get Lucky or Variant Human.

Most people who go for the new races do it for the flavour. If you want to play something similar to a khajiit, the base 5 are completely useless to you

Anywho

1: Plenty. The world's big and people travel. Stuff's regional, sure, but things can travel
2: Variable. Folks vary and will have their own things going on
3: see, the problem is most of mine is homebrew so anything I want can really exist. If there's a good enough reason for it to be there, sure, but its dependant on why specifically you're wanting it there
4: Completely down for it. Don't need to be from another world, you're just from another area and your statline is closer to another thing

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm unapologetically old school, so the only playable races I'll allow are those listed in the PHB. I like to keep my monsters monstrous and my heroes heroic.

Yeah as we all know, Firbolgs can’t be heroic.

 

[MGibster]

1) Few or plenty?

I prefer few. It's fine that D&D has 42 playable races....but I don't want those 42 races to be playable in every campaign. I find when players can play everything and the kitchen sink that ultimately it just doesn't matter if they're a tortle, human, or tiefling.

2) Common or variable?

I prefer common though I accept that that ship has sailed. I'll using floating ASIs as that's more modern and preferable.

3) Native or outsiders?

If there aren't any tortles in this campaign then I don't want a PC playing a tortle. I don't care if you can think half a dozen ways I could fit one into the campaign. If there are no tortles there are no tortles.

 

[Seramus]

Can I play as an ancient red dragon in your campaign? I've always wanted to play an ancient dragon. It has nothing to do with it's power level.

I did a wyrmling campaign. They were some adorable little tykes, their parents slain by noble knights and shipped off to be sold as exotic pets or dissected by a wizard academy. But they staged a daring escape and eventually settled into a distant cave/lair. Much base-building shenanigans happened, and a time skip to young dragons, and then scheduling issues happened as they always do.

 

[Older Beholder]

1) Few or plenty?

Plenty, I tend to stick to things officially published, but other than that I'd rather someone play something they're excited about or have an interesting idea for.

2) Common or variable?

Variable... personally I think ASI's make more sense based on background. So I'm happy to be flexible and 'floating' leaves it up to the player.

3) Native or outsiders?

Outsider, to a point.
Again, if it's in an official source book, and there's an interesting backstory to explain it, I'm cool with a character having come through a portal or whatever. Eg: a Warforged being built by priest of Gond in Forgotten Realms would be fine if that's what the player wanted.

I wouldn't allow Star Wars races or whatever as I don't really home brew player options in that way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

1) Few or plenty?

Do you prefer having a small bunch of races available to PCs, such as the PHB set or a cherry-picked group of favourites? Or do you think a large array available is better? Or do you even think the sky's the limit and would like to have as many as you can find for the edition you're currently playing?

As a player, I prefer to have relatively wide latitude...even though I usually will end up playing one of a small set of options (dragonborn, half-elf, human, or half-orc, occasionally genasi, warforged, or eladrin/high elf). I find it more interesting as a player when there is variety in both races and classes in the world.

As a DM, I have always favored a big tent. I find the best results always arise from players who are jazzed to play something, and in my experience, it is quite easy to tell the difference between "oh my gosh this is so COOL" and "oh my gosh this is so powerful."

2) Common or variable?

Do you prefer a more monolithic approach on racial mechanics i.e. all PCs of the same race X or subrace Y must use the same stats, or do you like having mechanical variants for each race and/or subrace (without narrating them as a different group)?

As a DM: Haven't really thought of it very much. Race doesn't come with stat bonuses in DW, and I would always work with a player to make sure their character reflects what story they're pursuing if we were using a system where it is more mechanically involved. What DW does have is racial moves, which usually tweak the basic rules of a class or of relevant baseline moves in the game overall. For example, I invented a new Shaman move for a player who wanted to play an owl-person in the original run of Jewel of the Desert, and when a player wanted to play a half-orc Ranger, he felt the existing half-elf move (which lets you take two roles during Undertake a Perilous Journey rather than just one like everyone else) was perfectly fine with him. (Said move also dovetailed with how orcs and half-orcs are more associated with the Nomad Tribes than the city-dwellers, so narratively it worked out nicely.) By working with my players I have tried to make these things meaningful to them, things that matter, but which don't mechanically fix them on a single path.

As a player: Doesn't really bother me much either way, so long as I know what the DM is going for. My true preference is "there is variability, but common patterns exist for populations at large." In other words, PCs and other one-offs can diverge, perhaps strongly, but this is at least a little noteworthy. A cowardly and scrawny dragonborn sticks out a little. A burly, dim eladrin catches notice. That sort of thing.

3) Native or outsiders?

Do you want playable races strictly from the fantasy setting you're adventuring in, or do you consent to PCs of a race that normally doesn't belong to it? This is a more nuanced question... you can make a distinction between the case of a race that belongs to the setting but not the world (like are you ok with PC races from the elemental or the outer planes) and the case of a race that belongs to a different setting entirely (like a Forgotten Realms race in Dark Sun) or even a different genre altogether (like a Star Wars or DCU race).

I don't normally play in heavily pre-figured settings, nor have I run them, so this is difficult to answer. However, as a general rule whether I am DM or player, I prefer to be open to possibilities. So, I guess what I'd say is, there's a presumption of nativeness (nativity?), but if I'm the DM and a player can sell me on an outsider, I'm game--and I'd like DMs to be likewise open to being sold on an outsider if it's something that appeals to me.

Bonus question (kind of a combination of questions 2 and 3): how do you feel about using different versions of a race from different settings?

Depends on what's being sought. My motto is, "Always support genuine player enthusiasm that is not abusive nor coercive." Is the player seeking an alternate setting version purely for a power boost? Ehhh...not super keen on that. Are they wanting to explore what it would be like for someone to be in a world where everything is familiar...and yet everything is alien at the same time? That sounds awesome, I'm game for that.

So yeah. My overall preference is that things are pretty open, so long as both player and DM are acting in good faith; patterns exist but are sometimes broken; and if the player is genuinely (non-coercively, non-abusively) enthusiastic about a thing, the DM should do their utmost to support that, unless doing so is truly well beyond the pale. I very rarely say a hard no, and my players know not to ruthlessly exploit my generosity, and that's how I prefer DMs and players to relate to one another. Both sides gracious.