D&D General What is the purpose of race/heritage?

[Tonguez]

Irl Im 200lbs and 6 ft tall but I play a gnome - it allows me to explore a character who is entirely unlike me, who uses brains rather than brawn and has an excuse to run away instead of fighting. Races make the “fantasy” which is why Im big on races being distinct from humans. Halflings, halforcs, dwarfs etc are just humans with preset ASI and bonus Feat, I can get the same result playing a variant human - thats not what I want, I want the mythic archetypes, mechanics dont matter

 

[Minigiant]

For the player, race allows for a major twist on the mechanics and lore of the player.

For the DM, race allows for offering alternative, near alien, or alien mindsets and mechanical alterations on the standard challenges of the game.

 

[Shiroiken]

People like different things for different reasons. I like playing elves, particularly magic-users/mages/wizards. I always have, even 3E when they didn't particularly line up well mechanically, but I do want archetypes to be a thing. Other people see races as nothing more than a bunch of mechanics they can use, sometimes reskinning them if necessary for worldbuilding. Usually it's a mix of both, with players wanting to play something of an alien mindset and having mechanics to back that up.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Some people act like D&D is the only place where you see multiple sapient species.

A massive body of Fantasy, Sci-Fi and other Spec Fic as well as actual Earth history (before we murdered and sexed our way into being the sole survivor) would like a word.

 

[Scott Christian]

It's certainly an overwhelming number of choices for new players, but gives the variety that veterans are looking for. Limiting options in the PHB and expanding with additional books seems like a perfect system.

In my groups we have a variety of playstyles that approach race/culture/lineage entirely differently. For some, it's humans in funny hats. For others, a set of stats and abilities for optimization. Still others prefer to take a deep dive into role-playing something that is as far from human as possible. It all depends on how the table's preference intersects with that particular player.

I find that when playing D&D, due to the overwhelming number of races, they become just tropes or barely mentioned. There is no real depth or culture, that is more provided by the setting.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’d be just as happy playing in a monoculture/race game.

Maybe more so.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Multiform. It serves at least three distinct purposes. In no particular order, because each person would order them differently:

• Character customization. Whether this manifests as optimization will vary from player to player, but it offers a choice.
• Thematic representation. Even as we move away from monolithic examples (fewer racial monocultures and monoracial cultures), ancestry still encodes thematic elements. Elves are lithe, graceful, magical. Dragonborn are strong, noble, poised. Dwarves are hardy, blunt, traditional. Etc.
• Cast differentiation. Have you ever noticed that, apart from humans, you'll usually see only one or two of a given ancestry in a group? It's obviously far from universal, but it's a pretty clear pattern I've noticed. Having distinct ancestries offers a form of character differentiation (as opposed to customization) that makes for a nice, clean shorthand.

Some would fork apart the first option into whether the customization is chosen to support a narrative concept or chosen to support a more "mechanical" optimization, but IMO those two impulses aren't actually different. They manifest the same way, highly selective choices of mechanical options, they just have different specific goals. Hating one and liking the other is not particularly coherent, especially since most people have just as dim a view of "bUt It'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO!!!" excuses as they do of "but my optimizations!!!" excuses, if not moreso. Disruptive customization is disruptive regardless of whether the goal is "be really good at X mechanical thing" or "demonstrate X concept as fully as possible."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find that when playing D&D, due to the overwhelming number of races, they become just tropes or barely mentioned. There is no real depth or culture, that is more provided by the setting.

Is this not an unavoidable consequence of treating the game as a toolkit and not as an established fictional setting?

 

[payn]

I find that when playing D&D, due to the overwhelming number of races, they become just tropes or barely mentioned. There is no real depth or culture, that is more provided by the setting.

This is one of the things that pushed me into the adventure path style of gaming. What I found was a pretty concentrated campaign on a particular part of the world. History, culture, and race/heritage/ancestry get a much fuller work up for everyone at the table to enjoy.

 

[Scott Christian]

Is this not an unavoidable consequence of treating the game as a toolkit and not as an established fictional setting?

I don't think so... or maybe. Not really sure. But from my experience, when 5e was just the PHB, the depth and culture often came from the races. Now it seems not to be the case.