Too, too many races

[Henry]

I don't see a problem with lots of sentient species in a world. Think about it this way - Don't we have ENOUGH states in the world? Why would Yugoslavia want to break up into four or five different groups rather than stay together as one whole? The Holy Roman Empire territory, and the Soviet Union, introduced too many states into the world. They couldn't possibly get along together.

Yet, the H.R.E. stayed in that state more or less for 800 years, and the Balkans and the Soviet Union are still balkanized. To me, that's a case of sentients living side by side, and not being artificially contrived. Historically, there were HUNDREDS of ethnic and cultural groups, and each one of them had their little patch of terra firma staked out, from Hittites to Kassites, to Caananites, to Hurrians, to Greeks, Lydians, Lombards, etc.

To the question, "how many races are enough?" I would say it depends on the group playing. Some people have a few hours a week to plan and play, but some people like college undergrads have hours and hours and hours of time to plan and play - especially when not taking summer classes. High schoolers have even more time on average. Depending on the players, some feel overwhelmed by all the "unnecessary" classes and races, while some have seen them all, played them all, and want still MORE new and original to throw into their daily games.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My latest attempt:

For players:
Humans, humans, and humans. That's it for player races. Maybe feytouched if someone asked, but that's really just a human with special ancestry.

For NPCs: Humans, fae, demons/devils, etc. Maybe half-rational lizard men or strange deformed giants at some point. However, all of the non-human races would be treated as they are in myth and faerie tale. Dryads are the spirits of the trees and nymphs are the spirits of the waters. They don't exactly have an ecology in the normal sense of the word. Demons, devils, celestials, etc. are also spirits created by God and either loyal or in rebellion. Giants are a staple of myth and legend but exactly what they and whether or not they're really separate from humans is not established. It might be that they are half-fiend or half-celestial humans, humans whose bodies have been warped by magical energies, or humans who have been blessed or cursed by the spirits. In any event, they stay on the sidelines of the story, isolated in particular areas. A giant may have a castle on a hill or a cyclops may live on an island but there aren't giants or cyclops in every nation and they don't really represent an independent culture.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Forgotten Realms, much as I love the setting, has way too many elf subraces.

In FR, an elf can't go to visit their friend in the next town over without coming back as a completely new elf subrace.

 

[Driddle]

I don't see a problem with lots of sentient species in a world. Think about it this way - Don't we have ENOUGH states in the world? Why would Yugoslavia want to break up into four or five different groups rather than stay together as one whole? The Holy Roman Empire territory, and the Soviet Union, introduced too many states into the world. They couldn't possibly get along together.

Yet, the H.R.E. stayed in that state more or less for 800 years, and the Balkans and the Soviet Union are still balkanized. To me, that's a case of sentients living side by side, and not being artificially contrived. Historically, there were HUNDREDS of ethnic and cultural groups ...

And the point that I clipped your excerpt is part of the problem, Henry. Because you're talking about cultures, not biologically seperate races. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, cultural differences are to be expected, if not embraced. But the ecology of a single world populated with a dozen-plus sentient species is harder to swallow. Compounding the difficulty is the unspoken basis that those species can't interbreed (without some magic hooey intervention or unique character background). Aside from elves and orcs crossing with humans, you don't see mixed heritages.

At least Star Wars gets to spread its species/races over dozens of planets. Each planet has its own legitimate ecology that supports its own version of sentience. Sci-fi in general very rarely expects us to believe more than three sentient species can rise to prominence on any one planet at a time. Fantasy refuses to set the same limit.

 

[Desdichado]

And the point that I clipped your excerpt is part of the problem, Henry. Because you're talking about cultures, not biologically seperate races. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, cultural differences are to be expected, if not embraced. But the ecology of a single world populated with a dozen-plus sentient species is harder to swallow. Compounding the difficulty is the unspoken basis that those species can't interbreed (without some magic hooey intervention or unique character background). Aside from elves and orcs crossing with humans, you don't see mixed heritages.

Or Dark Sun half-dwarves. Or Kalamar half-hobgoblins. Or planetouched "races."

The first question above is "how do you define a race" followed by "how many are too many." As I pointed out in my earlier post here, how you answer the first has a lot of bearing on how you answer the second.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I may start by supplying a list, I tend to let my players guide my decisions on how many races will be in the campaign based on what they choose.

Generally speaking, if a player has a desire to play a particular sentient race and there is no campaign reason to deny them, I allow it. But 1) they have to justify their choice to me, and 2) the resultant PC can't exceed the average party level (so no Centaurs in a 1st level party) and 3) the resultant PC cannot be inherently disruptive to party cohesiveness (no cambion assassins in a party of paladins).

My logic is this- if the race is sentient, any kind of individual could be produced. That PC Hobgoblin Paladin may be the only LG Hobgoblin in the entire gameworld, but that is no reason for me to exclude the player's choice. And, by and large, while individuals may vary, the races overall remain basically unchanged.

 

[bodhi]

It all depends on the campaign really. If I wanted to run pseudo-historical campaign more then one race would likely stretch things too far but if I was running a planseccape or spelljammer like campaign there really isn't any reason for an upper limit at all.

That's pretty much my point of view. If you want a rational ecology, you'd limit the number of sentient species.

Or, you could have dozens (or hundreds, or more), but with some underlying reason. Maybe the nature of the world's magic is such that species mutate very rapidly, so you get huge numbers of races and subraces. Maybe a powerful deity has cursed (or blessed) the inhabitants so that a child is always of a race different from either parent. Maybe the planet used to be a Spelljammer-style trading hub, but now there's a space storm, or there was a war, or whatever, and now they're cut off. Maybe there are just a ton of open gates left by litterbug mages, and being just walk in from other planes.

My biggest gripe about all the races is the manner in which a vast array of options are treated as just folks... seem a bit off the mark cosideringhow well the one race in the real world gets along with itself. I do think it is complete crap if one has an essentially medievalesque society and the barmaid is a half this and that and no one seems to notice or give a darn at all.

Well, I think it depends on just how cosmopolitan a given area is. If, on a given day, you're likely to interact with a dozen different races, singling out one for prejudice seems odd. I mean, unless everyone dislikes them. I could see fire elementals being unwelcome just based on property damage, for instance. On the other hand, if you're Farmer Ted, and have never seen a non-human (or whatever) in your life, I think it'd be more likely that'd you'd be wary of one. Even more so if you'd been brought up on stories of demons and ghosts and other such boogiemen.

 

[Henry]

Because you're talking about cultures, not biologically seperate races. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, cultural differences are to be expected, if not embraced. But the ecology of a single world populated with a dozen-plus sentient species is harder to swallow. Compounding the difficulty is the unspoken basis that those species can't interbreed (without some magic hooey intervention or unique character background). Aside from elves and orcs crossing with humans, you don't see mixed heritages.

Maybe my lack of sociological study here is showing, but what factors would necessitate the involability of multiple species? Birth rate, sure - superior physical characteristics, fine - but if most races had characteristics that were similar, then no one race will have clear advantage over the over. You could make the case that elves, with low birth rates, would be first ones to go - not necessarily for halflings or gnomes, or certainly not orcs.

Add to that the unquantifiable of magical assistance: The race who has clear technological or magical advantage will survive or even conquer (a la Native Americans versus the Spaniards). To me, sentient is sentient - it then comes down to who has the advantages, and if all advantages are roughly equal, then no one species will dominate.

Neanderthal vs. Cro-Magnon man is probably the ONLY, and sadly the only unrecorded, true species war in all human history. We don't know enough to draw clear pictures. Everything from tool-using superiority to breeding factors have been speculated, but if Neanderthals had had shamans able to produce real spells, maybe the picture might have turned out differently.

 

[Desdichado]

Neanderthal vs. Cro-Magnon man is probably the ONLY, and sadly the only unrecorded, true species war in all human history. We don't know enough to draw clear pictures. Everything from tool-using superiority to breeding factors have been speculated, but if Neanderthals had had shamans able to produce real spells, maybe the picture might have turned out differently.

Actually, most anthropologists believe multiple humanoid species existing at the same time was the norm until the unprecedented spread of Homo sapiens sapiens. In many cases, these species even cohabitated the same region. In some cases the distinction could be relatively sharp; as when early examples of Homo coexisted with remnant examples of Australopithicus, for example.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

I think it's because most people have a pet race that they love for whatever reason. I don't think it's always about powergaming, but that the race just has a coolness factor that speaks to them. Also, there is a strong desire with some players to have a character that is truly different and special - so it's not enough to play a generic PHB elf, he or she wants to play one of the ultra rare Sun Elves that come from a distant valley no human has ever visited. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, mind you, I'm just saying that sometimes players get tired of the familiar races and introducing new ones is one way to deal with that.

I agree, we all have our pet races. I love rakasta and I don't care what world it is, if I can talk the dm into letting me have it then I will. If I am running the world (which is most of the time) my long time players know to expect one at some point as an npc. I think the desire for more races stems from, possibly, the fact that so many of us gamers are voracious readers. We read a book and love the race and then go looking for something similar to play. I always try to get a rakasta-ish race allowed in a new game, but if I don't then I am not heart broken, I just ask the DM what kind of character he is looking for and have fun trying to help him out.

my two cents