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

[Reynard]

The half-orc and halfling threads -- particularly some specific responses in those threads -- have me thinking about what the purpose of having a menageries of PC races or heritages is in the game. Why 3 (elf, dwarf, halfling) or 6 (elf, dwarf, halfling, half-elf, half-orc, gnome) or 30 (I think that's the current number, if you include MotM)?

Is it having vibrant diversity among the player characters? Is it to have a diverse list of special abilities available to the players? Is it for story/fiction? Or is it for the "game stuff"? And how do those answers relate to the proliferation of races (that every edition has seen, btw)?

In my experience as a GM, it is (unsurprisingly) a mix of reasons. Not just either or, but sometimes both. I know some "power gamers" that pick a race based on the mechanical benefits, but then use that mechanical choice to create a compelling character with a cool personal story.

What do you think? Why do you like -- or not -- a variety of choices?

NOTE: I am not really talking about "culture" in this post, though some people will consider culture and race/heritage interchangeable. I think that is better left to a different discussion, so as not to muddy the waters.

 

[payn]

In my experience as a GM, it is (unsurprisingly) a mix of reasons. Not just either or, but sometimes both. I know some "power gamers" that pick a race based on the mechanical benefits, but then use that mechanical choice to create a compelling character with a cool personal story.

This is close to me. I dont necessarily see myself as a "power gamer" or optimized min/maxer, but I definitely pour over the options and enjoy putting a mechanical package together. I always complete that with a character that fits the GMs campaign and has their own unique personality. I also consider what the other players are choosing as well. I think the game works better when played as a group as opposed to individuals using the same rules. YMMV.

As for the the purpose, I think its to give a wide variety of options for play. It helps build out settings and flavor of a game too. Some folks want a simple dungeon delver, but I want the full fantasy package. Any given campaign might need a particular feel of character and having a wide variety helps make that possible. Also, YMMV.

 

[John R Davis]

Way too much proliferation IMO.

The good news is that diverse races have been adventuring happily together for the past 45 years or so.
They have set aside their differences for all these years and happily broken into creatures homes, killed them, and taken all their stuff.

 

[el-remmen]

As a player, race is just part of the mental picture of a character I imagine wanting to play. I give almost no heed to the mechanical aspects. The second question I'd ask myself about this would be, what is the experience of being X race in this world like? That'd also influence my choice.

As a DM they are about world-building and the world-picture I imagine.

 

[Stormonu]

For me, it's the chance to be something I'm not in this world. Mechanics are secondary for me, less than the fact I'm playing an upright, walking dragon. Mechanics are there to promote or replicate the perceived strengths (and weaknesses) of a not-human race. Function following form, as it were.

 

[Professor Murder]

It serves as a touchstone. You can't color outside the lines without lines.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's to give you an additional level of customisation at character creation.

 

[Scott Christian]

Is it having vibrant diversity among the player characters? Is it to have a diverse list of special abilities available to the players? Is it for story/fiction? Or is it for the "game stuff"? And how do those answers relate to the proliferation of races (that every edition has seen, btw)?

In my experience as a GM, it is (unsurprisingly) a mix of reasons. Not just either or, but sometimes both. I know some "power gamers" that pick a race based on the mechanical benefits, but then use that mechanical choice to create a compelling character with a cool personal story.

What do you think? Why do you like -- or not -- a variety of choices?

I think you're right, it is a mixture.

I think there is something to be said about players wanting choice. I also think there is something to be said that an overwhelming number of choices can paralyze new players, and in truth, make experienced players less happy. The old, "Well, I want this, but I also want this." Then the decision is made, and they are only half-satisfied.

I think from a D&D world perspective, there are players that attach themselves to the lore. Then there are others that are looking to attach the race to a character they want to imitate. There are those that attach to the mechanics to make their class better, and others that attach to the mechanics to make their RP more enjoyable. And, as you noted, there are people that do all of this at once.

 

[Corinnguard]

Like Stormonu said, the races/heritages allow you to be something else that you aren't in RL. And while most of them are human-like in appearance, they look at the world in ways we don't. Then you have those that don't look or act human at all. They're more challenging to role-play with because they really make you think. How do I as a Dragonborn see the world? How do I act around the non-Dragonborn? And so forth.

 

[Umbran]

Is it having vibrant diversity among the player characters? Is it to have a diverse list of special abilities available to the players? Is it for story/fiction? Or is it for the "game stuff"? And how do those answers relate to the proliferation of races (that every edition has seen, btw)?

Embrace the power of "and". It isn't just one reason.