What I think is wrong with the non human races.

[WizarDru]

So my next campaign will have humans as the only playable race, and I'll be limiting the opposition race to only one--maybe kobalds, because not being mammals, they could more easily coexist.

Why do you feel that it's more likely that a mammalian and reptillian race could coexist more readily than two mammalians? I would think the opposite would be true.

I think, quite honestly, that if you want to look closely at the non-human races, you're going to notice all sorts of inconsistincies that are going to make your head hurt. Dwarves and half-orcs can see in total darkness with perfect clarity. Elves don't sleep. Gnomes can naturally speak with certain animals and can summon magic naturally. Halflings are disproportionately fast and strong for their size. These sort of qualities should make them all seem alien to us. Carry that over to cold-blooded creatures, and you've got another layer of abstraction.

Which isn't to say it doesn't sound like a good idea, because it sounds like an awful lot of fun.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I'm glad to here that some are changed.

I would say you have me there Thornir thats a fairly good description of the race, but not every single human fishes or is greedy. Every elf knows how to use a sword. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have this bonus at all maybe just the ones that border with orcs etc?

What you say at the end 'as a race...' is essential, as a person they could be easily differentiate from one another (besides appearence). What we aren't given is how Elf A is not the same as elf B.

This in no way represents how I think you should do these things. Just personal opion.

I see what you mean, and I think Umbran's post gets right to it. We have personal experience with being human and are easily able to mark the differences. For other races, most people look to what the writers tell us about them. I guess personally I never quite bought into the idea that all elves or all dwarves are pretty much the same, I saw the descriptions as a general tendency of the race and have often explored differences in my PCs or encouraged it in players I was DMing.

I'm sure a major factor in the sterotypes of the other races is a familiarity thing. If you are publishing a campaign setting and you describe Dwarves as gentelle, easy-going people with a love of nature and woodland settings, you will create confusion and may actually lose sales as people flame you for "messing up" dwarves. It is much easier to stick to what people know and make a few small adjustments to change the flavor a little.

I like the HARP idea of race and culture, but how does that work? Does a sylvan dwarf still have darkvision? Does a deep warren halfling get darkvision? How are the racial "advantages" implemented versus cultural ones? Does race simply become a physical description and culture is what matters? Just curious.

 

[Ferret]

I agree that Umbran has a good point, we don't have not clone races, but we are missing is info of how the elves from over there aren't the same as them from there.

The subraces don't work I think because that simply seem to restate all the elves from over here are all this.