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

[Li Shenron]

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?

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)?

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).

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?

 

[Lycurgon]

1) Plenty...
As a player I like a wide Varient of choices. I am a bit bored with most of the PHB options, although it depends on my character concept - recently I have played a human and are currently playing a Half-Elf. But having played most of core races a lot over the course of the past 5 editions I not generally prefer other options. I still like halflings and Dragonborn, but my favourite races are goblins, kobolds, aasimars, leonin, and tabaxi. But different things grab my fancy when it comes time to actually choose a character for a game.

As a DM, more my homebrew campaign I have curated the list but kept it pretty broad with lots of options, although the flavour has been changed for some. There is also a way to add anything to my world (a huge Chaos Storm can mutate people, create people or possibly pull them from another world, although that last is unlikely) if someone was dead set on playing something, but it would make them a one of a kind stranger everywhere they went. I would consider that option on a case by case basis.

2)Generally Common I guess...
I use the same abilities for all members of the same subraces/races. I like Tasha's rules for changing Ability Scores for PCs but generally have NPCs having the standard Stats for their race. I would allow minor changes like those allowed by Tasha's if it make sense for the character.

3)Native but maybe an occasional non-specific outsiders
I want the PCs to be natives, but allow Gith y and z which are from the Astral plane. As stated above I could allow someone from another world if it suited but wouldn't let someone from a specific world in without a good reason. I don't want to drag story elements from other settings/Worlds into my game so not sure if there is a good enough reason to have a character from another setting. I would prefer a mutated/created individual if someone wanted to play a specific race and mechanic, than having a character from another setting. Definitely don't want scifi characters turning up in my fantasy campaign.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

All races are to be discussed at a session zero. If it fits the setting and everybody is happy, then I have no problems. But the group must all like it. I have however personal preferences:

1) Few
For the DM, few is better. Much easier to fit into a setting. And I dislike players who choose a race purely for its stats/abilities. I prefer role players over power players.

2) Not a strong position
It's important to me that PCs have weaknesses too. Giving players too much flexibility in terms of choosing their stats will create very optimal characters, which is actually boring.

3) To be discussed in the group at session zero
Players must make it fit into the setting during session zero, or it's not allowed. I could perhaps accept one character from outside the setting. Or I could perhaps accept it if all characters are the same race from outside the setting. But all characters from different settings like a rag tag group of aliens is something I would not accept because I can only see problems making that fit into any storyline.

Bonus question)
See answer at 3: to be discussed at the session zero.

 

[TwoSix]

1) As a DM, I prefer fewer races within the narrative of the setting, although I'm not a stickler. I generally use "race" as a placeholder for a wide variety of mechanical expressions; "fae" or "beastmen" might be a race within the setting, with a lot of published race mechanics falling under that umbrella.

2) Definitely variable. "Race" is ultimately about the player's aesthetic expression with narrative ties to the setting, how that gets expressed mechanically is of relatively low importance.

3) I prefer native, although I'm open to the outsider concept if the player has strong ideas. I generally don't do a ton of worldbuilding before session zero, so I'll make adjustments to "native" races depending on the players' input. As a player, I stick to what the DM offers as standard within their setting.

 

[aco175]

I play D&D generally as the only RPG that I play, but can see that if I played a Star Wars game I would have a different style. I prefer only a set number of races for the world. The options in the PHB are fine and if you have a 1-off of an asimar or eledrin then fine. I like to have monsters as monsters that are separate then the player choices. Why the dragonborn have come to be accepted among the more human-looking races over the orc or goblin is up to the DM.

I also liked having racial modifiers. I feel that certain races are more prone to certain classes based on their size, speed, or something else. It would make a more optimized PC to play a halfling rogue or dwarf cleric, but it is not limiting you playing a halfling wizard or dwarf wizard just because you do not have the +2 Int bonus. Your race is not built that way. I can see why people want the floating bonuses, but that may be missing part of the game to me.

In D&D I tend to want the races to have developed on the world. I can see shoehorning in things like dragonborn in FR with the change of editions and having the worlds merge and then shift, but that is rather too fantastic for my game. A Warcraft movie-like portal opening to another world letting in a bunch of XYZ is meh to me as well. If I was plying a Star Wars game, then fine, but I like my D&D a bit fantasy medieval still.

Bonus of letting a Dragonlance halfling into my FR game or an Eberon orc into my homebrew, I would generally say no. Initially it feels like the player would be trying to game the world. There may be something where if I let orcs as PCs and another setting already had orcs, I may allow it as a sub-race of the orcs to my gaming world. To pull kender to FR is just a no.

 

[Lyxen]

It really depends on the game. Some games are very focused on the setting and the history of its races. Others we play in the FR and no-one cares, everything goes.

As others have said, it's also important that there is some acceptance by all players of the other races, for example a gnome and a goblin hating each other's guts all the time, not to forbid it but so that they are aware of what they are getting into.

 

[ART!]

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?

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)?

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).

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?

1: Plenty. I prefer this a player and as a GM. Actually, as a player I'm happy to work with whatever restrictions the GM sees fit to request/enforce, as long as they don't seem like some weird ego or a power thing ("Bob loves gnomes and Bob annoys me, so no gnomes!"). I like my players to have whatever options they want or need, and the other GMs in our group seem to feel the same way. One player right now has a custom lineage in our 5E game, having run in by the DM, and none of the players batted an eye. I guess we're kind of a "let your freak flag fly!" kind of group.

2: Variable. I've designed some races, and I always build them with a couple choices to be made from a short list of thematic options. For instance, when I've built races that have innate spellcasting, the player gets to choose from a few options which cantrip and spells they have. Similarly, I support floating ASIs.

3: All our games have and continue to take place in the Forgotten Realms (just for convenience, more than anything), so anything just about any race, official or UA, that WOTC publishes for 5E is fair game for us. And no DM in our group has said no to any non-FR WOTC races - we just kind of hand-wave it and/or come up with a FR origin for the race.

No one has proposed playing a race from Star Wars or the like, but that's a pretty cool idea! I'm sure we'd be okay with it, if the player was into it and the 5E write-up wasn't OP.

If someone wanted to play a (for example) Zendikar elf in our FR games, it would be met with a collective "cool - there's lots of kinds of elves in the world!"

Although we've played exclusively in FR, no one seems too attached to the lore.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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?

1. Fewer is better IMO, maybe six - eight is usually more than enough. Unless it is a unique setting, the "typical" fantasy races fit D&D better. Having tons of races is better suited to Star Wars and similar games.

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)?

2. Both?

Ideally what I would like in D&D is to have 5-6 racial traits for each race, but when you make your character you only pick 1 or 2 of them. For example, why is every Halfling in D&D lucky, brave, and nimble? Wouldn't be more appealing if some halflings were lucky? others brave? others nimble?

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).

3. Native. Rarely if someone really wants to play a more unique race, I'll accommodate them with a reason why their outsider race is present in the 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?

Fine, really, as long as there is a reason for it. It goes back to #2 about having multiple traits but you only choose a couple. So, one elf might have keen senses and darkvision, another might have fey ancestry and trance.

 

[Oofta]

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?

Few. I want the races and their associated cultures to be fairly distinct and recognizable. Too many races to me ends up being boring because they don't stand out.

2) Common or variable?

At the very least I want a default. I'm a bit on the fence on this one because I like playing against the standard racial expectations. If a dwarf can start with a +2 intelligence, my dwarven wizard doesn't stand out.

On the other hand I'm not sure how much I care. I do want a default because that still helps me think about how it will shape the culture, even if there are exceptions.

3) Native or outsiders?

Native with very rare exceptions. I know there's the whole "last of" and "one of a kind" tropes, but I want origins to fit in with the existing campaign world.

I have made exceptions to this in the past because I could come up with an interesting story and the PC could pass as human.

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?

Same as #3, they have to come up with an origin story that fits into the story. I'll consider alternatives but honestly the answer will probably be no.

I want a campaign world that makes sense to me, I think it helps me build better campaigns. Could I allow just one more race? Sure. But I've been running the same campaign world for decades. Make enough "just this one time" and you have more races running around, even if they are rare. Honestly even with the races I do allow (human, high and wild elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, half-orc) it feels like too many races running around. How many races can you have that have a sustainable population and niche?

I can imagine coming up with a world that some kind of cross roads, a world with infinite doors to other worlds. I once considered switching over to a Ring World that's so incredibly massive that there's room for as many races as you want. But it's not my world.

Finally, and I mean no offense because everyone plays for different reasons, I don't see why playing a different race because you're bored with the existing races really matters. We will always play any race as a human with a rubber mask because we can't really get that far out of our own perspective. If you're only doing it for the mechanical benefit, I'm probably not the DM for you. If you want to play a tiefling because they're an outcast, we have plenty of options to do that without introducing another race.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

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?

I prefer a focused setting where races have distinct roles and emphasis on the setting itself rather than filling in a random niche or void perceived as a lack of something. If you're bored with playing a common race, try coming up with an interesting background or story first. Do people get bored of reading books if the main characters are humans, elves, etc.? Not if the characters are interesting. Think about that.

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)?

I think this gets to the root of the issue. We traditionally associate racial choices with the mechanical aspects first. That's just how the game has been and how its become the model for almost every RPG thereafter. But no one seems to challenge this as the best possible way to integrate races and species into a game system.

What if the traits we associate with some races were translated in some other way than the manipulation of the all-important ability scores? Ability scores just have too much emphasis already, as if we can extrapolate every mechanical facet of a character with six universal characteristics. So if we think of dwarves as being tough and hearty, we give their CON an automatic boost and then reinforce every other stereotype associated with bonuses to poison saves, and fortitude, and hit points, etc.

But what if you want your dwarf to be a wizard? Does the CON seem that important than the INT they are denied? Or, like most players, you just don't consider the dwarf wizard viable precisely because of this. It becomes more like a personal challenge instead. And yes, I've taken up that challenge and enjoyed playing against type. But there were some baked-in benefits that didn't fit my vision for my character and were largely unused or ignored.

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).

If the party is composed entirely of "outsiders", why are they in this strange land in the first place? And how would that not attract attention and distrust among citizens who may not be familiar or comfortable with a group of powerful "outsiders". I'd say one or two at most, and they may need to deal with prejudices and distrust.

Also, I would need to define what is "native" to a particular setting or region before I can consider what an "outsider" may be. What applies for one world, or setting, or even a campaign, may differ depending on the kind of game I want to run and my players want to play.

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?

As always, it depends on the setting and the game I want to run or play in at the moment. Just because it exists in the rules, I am not obligated to allow it for the sake of more options.