PC Race Options: Quantity or "Quality"?

From a gaming perspective (PF as a better alternative to video games), more options is always better. You give the players more power over his character's abilities, "look", and possible builds. If you give your players a bunch of options they aren't interested in, it's no sweat, because they can simply not choose those options, and they aren't adversely affected.

From a narrative perspective (PF as an interactive novel), I find the opposite is optimal. The more races exist in a given space, the more the reader/viewer/player has to know about, and generally the less developed each will be. How firmly established can Elven culture be if there are two dozen other races, each with their own specific culture, sharing the narrative space alongside them?

This is something I find myself thinking about fairly often, trying to let my players do as close to whatever they want as I can, while still trying to maintain a cohesive world where everything fits into the history and has a distinct visual identity (I'm an illustration major, and bringing my tabletop world to life is going to be my senior thesis a year from now). Especially when it comes to dwarves, gnomes, and halflings: most of the time, in narratives where all three exist as separate races, they feel like slightly different versions of the same thing.

In practice, the only race I forbid outright is Strix, other may need to be reflavored or adjusted to fit better (all kitsune are foreigners and don't begin with the "western common" as a language, most ifrits simply identify as humans with strange power).

Has anyone else had this dilemma? Do you even consider it a dilemma at all? Am I just overthinking it?

I think there's often too many races, and it's not restricted to Pathfinder.

In the science-fiction Star Drive setting (made by TSR way back when), there were 13 human "stellar nations" (basically human subraces, mechanically), plus Independents, on top of about 6 alien races. Also mutants were basically a human subrace (you lost your bonus human skill points) but mutants write their own hooks.

The aliens were marginalized. None had developed faster-than-light travel by themselves, not even the otherwise more advanced fraal. (The titular stardrive was a human/fraal invention, but there were many more humans than fraal...) Even so, most races had an important place in the storyline (especially my favorites, the sesheyans), and each alien race had obvious powers. The mechalus were living cyborgs and got extra cyber-slots plus a bonus to using computers, as an example, although their role in the storyline was kind of ... boring.

13 nations was too much. Only four or so were actually plot-relevant, many being as marginalized as the aliens. As an example, the Hatire were basically "Space Amish", so people who won't use anything more complicated than a farm tractor, but could still expect to show up in a starfaring game. Somehow.

And then there's Sturgeon's Law of game balance... the more stuff you write, the more likely you'll put something unbalanced into the game. The Nariacs (Communist cyborgs) were basically part of everyone's favorite villainous group, Void Corp. Their "racial" ability was to ... have more cyber slots. More than the aliens born with cybergear, if you had a high Constitution anyway. Insight was another marginal groups, basically Anonymous (the hacker group) as a nation, before said hacker group existed. They got better bonuses to using computers than the people born with computers in their head. At least you couldn't be both simultaneously! And Void Corp, a generally villainous group, either got to advanced in level faster or got more skill points per level (which amounted to the same thing, since in Alternity everything is based on skills)... not only was that game-breaking, but it made me think that TSR didn't have 13 (well, 14) good ideas, and maybe they should have trimmed that list considerably.

Another reason for how races can add a "bad taste" to the mouth is how many races (or "cultural groups") that might have great storyline hooks also get powers added just because. Sometimes these new powers are cheesy, but sometimes they actually make you weaker. In 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms there were the star elves, whose storyline stuff I cannot recall but who existed solely so there was a race of elves with a Charisma bonus to make better sorcerers. There was also a race of "arctic dwarves" who got cold resistance because they lived up north, exactly the same way Inuit-equivalent got cold resistance... no, wait, they don't. I think the humans from up north could buy a feat that gave resistance to cold (in terms of resisting weather), and I see no reason why said "arctic dwarves" couldn't just take the same feat.

I very rarely restrict players' racial choices. If we can find a way to put an 'oddball' race into a game, we will (the 'dimensional portal/spelljammer' excuse works well for this). I have never had a problem with it.

Another thing to remember is the character's 'race' may not be a race as typically thought of. He could be a magical experiment, a unique mutation, something like that. He may well be the only of his kind on the face of the planet.

It really depends on how you want to handle races in your game.

I like to use World of Warcraft for this example, so bare with me. One of the biggest critiques of World of Warcraft is the lack of diversity between the human race. Considering all of the real-world cultures that we have, it is somewhat odd that Blizzard's humans are effectively limited to two: the Medieval archetype and the Gothic archetype. But this limitation starts to make sense when you look at how Blizzard handles the dozens of other races in their game, both NPC and PC races. Generally speaking, Blizzard hands real-world cultures off to other races instead of giving them all to humanity. The Pandaren are influenced by a variety of Asian customs (especially Chinese), the Tauren feel very Native American, the Night Elves are somewhat Japanese, the Orcs are barbarians, the Vrykul are Norse, so on and so forth. Humanity doesn't need to be diverse in their setting because Blizzard has gone out of their way to give humanity a specific racial identity.

Now, how to apply this to Pathfinder? Ultimately, it depends on your setting. Golarion more closely models the real world in that humans have strong analogs to real human cultures and other races tend to be odder / stranger. What sort of roles do you need filled in the cultures of your world? How many of those roles do you want occupied by humanity? Those are the sort of questions that you need to ask yourself when asking how many races is "too much" for Pathfinder.

Why not both?

I never really understood the "X race has less worldbuilding; therefore the roleplay can't be as deep". I don't think the OP is saying this, but I've seen the argument. I mean, with humans I'm not going to research up on all the cultures, and what's stopping me from exploring and extrapolating from what I know about the other races?

It's funny. The large list of races is one of my biggest draws to the game, and yet I have never gotten a chance to use even half of them and more than likely never will.

Rather than fifteen different races, I would almost prefer less races but with "archetypes"; your "deep dwarf" isn't a separate race, its just a dwarf that took a few different racial background options. Etcetera.

Rather than fifteen different races, I would almost prefer less races but with "archetypes"; your "deep dwarf" isn't a separate race, its just a dwarf that took a few different racial background options. Etcetera.

That's sort of what I'm going for. Rather than have 3-4 different "short earth guys" (dwarves, gnomes, halflings and deurgar) I'm trying to get my players to embrace having just one short earth-guy race for which all of those are human-made nicknames.

I've never played a game where races were so much discouraged, but that I could feel the GM had a certain feeling about some races. Like one guy who said that he was really hoping I didn't pick one of the quote unquote "furry races". Mostly, I go human if I'm a caster, since the favored class bonuses make me happy, but I've also shown much love for the Tengu. Maybe it's just me, but I love that race. It's got good flavor and makes for some particularly interesting builds, [i]especially[i] as a gunslinger.

Honestly some of the most fun I've had roleplaying is with races that have very little established world building. It leaves me room to create as a player, which you dont often get. My two active characters are a changeling and a wayang. The dm doesnt have alot in their worlds for either. I am making it up as I go along, and in the process have developed some very interesting characters.

I happen to like the fact that some of the 'new' races dont have as much established in the world, as the greater freedom of a less explored race brings out my creativity. Obviously this means I am spending alot of time as the 'fish out of water' character, but its still really interesting from a roleplay perspective. Where as I find myself not very interested in the 'standard' races anymore. If I have to choose from them I choose human, and my race becomes unimportant to my character beyond the stats. For gristle the changeling ranger and Javan the Wayang Witch, their race is part and parcel to the character. For me personally, that is because I am using some of the less explored races.

Has anyone else had this dilemma? Do you even consider it a dilemma at all? Am I just overthinking it?

You're over-thinking it, IMO. It's great that you want to create a living world for your players to explore, but if it's anything like the size of Earth, there's plenty of room for the 'oddball' races. Even if you can't work an odd race into some undefined corner of your world, as Zhayne says, there're always magical portals (Sigil's such a useful place!) and crashed spelljammers.

Some players like Kolokotroni actually like not being tied to a lot of established history, because it gives them a bit of freedom to make some of their own. (With the DM's approval, of course.) Other players simply aren't interested in all the living history you've put into your world. I feel like I'm telling a child there's no such thing as Santa Claus when I say that, but it's true.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Rather than fifteen different races, I would almost prefer less races but with "archetypes"; your "deep dwarf" isn't a separate race, its just a dwarf that took a few different racial background options. Etcetera.

That's sort of what I'm going for. Rather than have 3-4 different "short earth guys" (dwarves, gnomes, halflings and deurgar) I'm trying to get my players to embrace having just one short earth-guy race for which all of those are human-made nicknames.

Actually, I'd expect the short earth guys to have very different names for themselves, while humans and other demihumans lump them into one generalized group. Like how north Americans tend to call everyone from south America hispanics or latinos, even though they think of themselves as equadorians, or cubans, or mexicans, etc..

Of course, no race is going to call itself 'dwarf' or 'halfling,' but you get the idea.

I limit a lot. Races available change depending on the campaign I'm running at the time. So do classes. So do alignments. It's my game. You'll have fun. Wanna play? These are the choices available to you over the next 12-16 months as we play this campaign.

I've got all veteran players, though. So maybe that's part of it. They've sowed all their wild oats in RPGs. And they have no complaints with the restrictions.

I've never played a game where races were so much discouraged, but that I could feel the GM had a certain feeling about some races. Like one guy who said that he was really hoping I didn't pick one of the quote unquote "furry races". Mostly, I go human if I'm a caster, since the favored class bonuses make me happy, but I've also shown much love for the Tengu. Maybe it's just me, but I love that race. It's got good flavor and makes for some particularly interesting builds, especially as a gunslinger.

DMs are weird.* I actually had a furry in my player group for about a year, and he always played some kind of anthro race. And not once was it a problem.

Let players play whatever floats their boats, for jeebus' sake. It's just a game.

*I say this as a veteran DM, myself.

I'm not a big fan of the "party of freaks". As Riggler pointed out - this is a phase many RPers go though and subsequently get it out of their system.

The fantasy adventure trope generally has space for one "oddball" race in the group. But if your party consists of a mechanical man, a giant praying mantis, a floating blue air elemental, and a pixie - it starts to feel a lot less like the traditional D&D experience I seek when playing this game.

There's a time and place for the uber-cosmopolitan group of wacky characters - but sometimes you just want to pull in the reins and have some old fashioned swords and sorcery. Too many races can get in the way of this.

Ellis - I entirely understand what you're saying. One of the many things my GM duty led me to was some study in anthropology, out of an eagerness to create new cultures for my PCs to encounter... usually by killing them and taking their stuff. Still, getting to rob and murder many different cultures is the kind of little detail that players appreciate.

I think part of the reason you're feeling this frustration is the tendency among game designers (and quite a few gamers) to assume that a different culture must belong to a new, mechanically distinct species. The fact that many of these sentient races only exist (in game terms) to provide justifications for mayhem doesn't help.

It doesn't have to be that way, of course. Look at Conan; humanity is the only race in the Hyborean Age that has civilizations, but it comes in a hundred flavors. When designing my own gameworld I've tried to break out of the standard mold of "a hundred sentient species"; it's startling how many basic D&D/Pathfinder precepts I had to rethink once I said there were, say, seven thinking races - and none of them were 'just sword-fodder'. You can provide all the distinction you really need for a game world with a handful of races; although to reflect the various cultures, it can be fun to come up with a wide array of traits (not racial abilities - background traits) for players to toy with.

Startling as it is, fantasy in general has just four principal archetypal races, although three of them come in a thousand different forms:
1. Humans, as a baseline and for comparison and contrast to the exotic.
2. An ancient, sophisticated race.
3. A passionate (and generally violent) race.
4. A prosaic, practical race.

...When I phrase it that way, I suddenly want to create a world inhabited by humans, Melniboneans, Klingons and hobbits. Think of the wars! Think of the opera! Think of how many hobbit foot-scalps it takes to buy a beer in a Klingon town!

Generally one then combines one of the Four Archetypes with other factors: nomadic or city-building? Focused on magic, nature, or technology? Polar, temperate, tropical, subterranean or orbital?... but these sub-divisions can just as readily be separate civilizations belonging to one of the Four Archetypal Races.

There's nothing wrong with extreme racial specialization; Oerth, Faerun and Golarion all have it. But you don't have to feel like it's mandatory.

@Tequilla: The point is I'd rather have one little earth race that I can put a lot into than have 3 or more of them that either get less to their name or end up looking like members of the same race anyway.

On the subject of "furry characters": I got no problems. As it stands, a player who wants to play one of those races can either be a full-blown khajiit-type that comes from a far away land, or an elf blessed by his patron animal spirit (which is something my elves have), in which case he'd be an elf with animal features.

Another thing I've done is remove Orcs entirely and have them, hobgoblins, and goblins lumped into one "Adversary race" based on how Hobgoblins are presented in-game. A PC of that race would almost universally be an escaped slave or exiled magician.

I'm not a big fan of the "party of freaks". As Riggler pointed out - this is a phase many RPers go though and subsequently get it out of their system.

The fantasy adventure trope generally has space for one "oddball" race in the group. But if your party consists of a mechanical man, a giant praying mantis, a floating blue air elemental, and a pixie - it starts to feel a lot less like the traditional D&D experience I seek when playing this game.

There's a time and place for the uber-cosmopolitan group of wacky characters - but sometimes you just want to pull in the reins and have some old fashioned swords and sorcery. Too many races can get in the way of this.

I guess it's diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. I personally don't mind the so called "party of freaks" because, I mean, if we're adventurers we're a bunch of weirdoes to begin with. I understand restricting races for specific campaigns, but one of the things I do like about fantasy rpgs is the different races I can play--in fact, that's probably the thing that attracts me to pathfinder the most.

Is this really a phase? I know I'm relatively new to roleplaying games, but...

It's a phase that RPG groups go through... but also a phase that RPG systems go through. Anybody remember when 3.5 groups always had a whisper gnome, a goliath and an elan in 'em? ;)

Books with new playable races in 'em make money. And GMs tend to give in a lot to player whining. I go out of my way to run a human when I join such a table. It reduces the implausibility factor. The GM tends to be grateful, too. "You mean I don't have to look up your character in any other sourcebook?"

Eh, my first pathfinder game I was the newbie of the group and I ended up playing human just because the rest of the group was three catfolk, a gnome, and two halflings IIRC. I ended up hating the character because I wasn't interested in his race class combo at all (I had come in wanting to play something completely different, but decided on human fighter for the sake of "balancing the group out").

I've never quite understood the problem with having a 'party of freaks' but then again, my favorite setting of the last 20 years was ebberon. So I guess its just my personal preference. My group tends to enjoy the 'party of freaks' role and enjoys the conflicts and challenges that creates in game.

I also dont see it as a departure from 'traditional' dnd, but thats mostly because my first forays in the game with 1st edition included lots of things like half giants, half dragons, and other oddball races. Humans, elves, and even dwarves are too much like what I actually am (a human being), I want to roleplay something I'm not.

I've seen this problem in many games, and have a default solution when I GM. I simply set my adventure in a location that allows me to ignore most of the races/cultures.

Advantage #1 - I don't have to write about too many different cultures, instead just developing one, two, or maybe three that the PCs will encounter. So, if we're exploring the Mwangi jungles, I only think about the Mwangi culture. Every other culture is easily forgotten.

Advantage #2 - The PCs races/cultures either match the locals, or are left up to the player do define. If someone is playing a dwarf in my Mwangi adventure, they get to decide what it means to be dwarven. Some players will make stuff up on their own, others borrow from popular literature, and others find an "official" source to make their decisions for them. In any case, I don't have to do anything as a GM except support their assertions by reacting appropriately. (Once in a while I might throw in a fellow dwarven traveler, because it gives the PC a chance to talk about being dwarven.)

Democratus wrote:

I'm not a big fan of the "party of freaks". As Riggler pointed out - this is a phase many RPers go though and subsequently get it out of their system.

The fantasy adventure trope generally has space for one "oddball" race in the group. But if your party consists of a mechanical man, a giant praying mantis, a floating blue air elemental, and a pixie - it starts to feel a lot less like the traditional D&D experience I seek when playing this game.

There's a time and place for the uber-cosmopolitan group of wacky characters - but sometimes you just want to pull in the reins and have some old fashioned swords and sorcery. Too many races can get in the way of this.

I guess it's diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. I personally don't mind the so called "party of freaks" because, I mean, if we're adventurers we're a bunch of weirdoes to begin with. I understand restricting races for specific campaigns, but one of the things I do like about fantasy rpgs is the different races I can play--in fact, that's probably the thing that attracts me to pathfinder the most.

Is this really a phase? I know I'm relatively new to roleplaying games, but...

I think 'It's just a phase' is an over-generalization, and dismissive to boot. Kind of like how "Oh I outgrew rpgs" can sound very dismissive.

IME, most players experiment with different archetypes for a while, and then settle on a favorite one or two. Sometimes their favorites end up being traditional Tolkienisms -- human, dwarf, elf, and/or halfling -- but other times it ends up being githzerai, half orcs, changlelings, aquatic elves, or even stranger races.

And some players never stop enjoying the variety of choices that D&D offers. And all of this goes for classes, too.

@Tequilla: The point is I'd rather have one little earth race that I can put a lot into than have 3 or more of them that either get less to their name or end up looking like members of the same race anyway.

No, I follow you. My comments about naming conventions was an aside.

Do we really need 3-4 shortfolk races? A lot of people seem to feel that gnomes are redundant, at least, but then I gamed with a great guy who loved gnomes. Not halflings -- he specifically got a big kick out of playing gnomes.

You're the first person I've heard who would put dwarves and halflings in the same archetypal category, so clearly everyone has a different take. As a fellow DM, I suggest you do as you like -- it's your world-creation and you have every right to make it your own.

Just keep in mind that for many gamers, the sheer variety of D&D's race/class options is one of the game's biggest appeals. There are fantasy rpgs out there with a more...serious(?) take on races and setting. (Exalted comes to mind, with its human-only setting, and 'classes' which are tightly bound to the setting and metaplot.) And there are gamers who like that kind of tightness. (See: Democratus.)

But one of the reasons that D&D remains so successful, much like the Bible, is that it has a little something for everyone!

I'm new to tabletop RPGs but even in video game RPGs I avoid being human if at all possible. I know full well what it's like to be a human so I usually play the weirdest race the game/GM will let me get away with. This has been quite the 20+ year "phase".

Here's a fun experiment: Announce that your next campaign is occurring in a world with just one, single, solitary sentient race. (Yes, yes, I know, but keep going.) Allow the APG variant racial abilities for that race, and whatever traits fit... except those that refer or apply to any other sentient race. The same goes for NPCs - nothing (outsiders and undead aside) with an Int above 6 or so.

I think you'd find your players relish the fresh challenge to distinguish their characters within that one-species limitation. They might whine a bit, but that's normal. Shows they're taking an interest. ;)

Here's a fun experiment: Announce that your next campaign is occurring in a world with just one, single, solitary sentient race. (Yes, yes, I know, but keep going.) Allow the APG variant racial abilities for that race, and whatever traits fit... except those that refer or apply to any other sentient race. The same goes for NPCs - nothing (outsiders and undead aside) with an Int above 6 or so.

I think you'd find your players relish the fresh challenge to distinguish their characters within that one-species limitation. They might whine a bit, but that's normal. Shows they're taking an interest. ;)

What? And take all crutches away? Blasphemy. ;-)

Hey, the inventor of the phonograph never thought of recording music with it.

Besides, I'm leaving 'em about ten other chapters full of crutches, aren't I?

I'm not a big fan of the "party of freaks". As Riggler pointed out - this is a phase many RPers go though and subsequently get it out of their system.

The fantasy adventure trope generally has space for one "oddball" race in the group. But if your party consists of a mechanical man, a giant praying mantis, a floating blue air elemental, and a pixie - it starts to feel a lot less like the traditional D&D experience I seek when playing this game.

There's a time and place for the uber-cosmopolitan group of wacky characters - but sometimes you just want to pull in the reins and have some old fashioned swords and sorcery. Too many races can get in the way of this.

I can't say I've ever felt that urge to pull in the reins, but after a couple of decades where you pretty much couldn't do anything else with D&D, I'm pretty tired of 'traditional'. Another reason I jumped into Eberron with both feet.

I do love how you call it a 'phase', like it's a mental problem, instead of just other people *gasp* having different preferences than you, though. Stay classy.

aceDiamond wrote:

I've never played a game where races were so much discouraged, but that I could feel the GM had a certain feeling about some races. Like one guy who said that he was really hoping I didn't pick one of the quote unquote "furry races". Mostly, I go human if I'm a caster, since the favored class bonuses make me happy, but I've also shown much love for the Tengu. Maybe it's just me, but I love that race. It's got good flavor and makes for some particularly interesting builds, especially as a gunslinger.

DMs are weird.* I actually had a furry in my player group for about a year, and he always played some kind of anthro race. And not once was it a problem.

Let players play whatever floats their boats, for jeebus' sake. It's just a game.

*I say this as a veteran DM, myself.

I banned all anthropomorphic races, without being given special permission, after a furry ruined my perception of them.

In my opinion all races are good but you need to realize how to play what.

I've met people that have played amazing Tengu and Drow that had human interests and personality.
Then I've met people that play Drizz't and the raven from Edgar Allan Poe, cool concept poorly executed.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

aceDiamond wrote:

I've never played a game where races were so much discouraged, but that I could feel the GM had a certain feeling about some races. Like one guy who said that he was really hoping I didn't pick one of the quote unquote "furry races". Mostly, I go human if I'm a caster, since the favored class bonuses make me happy, but I've also shown much love for the Tengu. Maybe it's just me, but I love that race. It's got good flavor and makes for some particularly interesting builds, especially as a gunslinger.

DMs are weird.* I actually had a furry in my player group for about a year, and he always played some kind of anthro race. And not once was it a problem.

Let players play whatever floats their boats, for jeebus' sake. It's just a game.

*I say this as a veteran DM, myself.

I banned all anthropomorphic races, without being given special permission, after a furry ruined my perception of them.

I am sorry but once you have a catfolk that spends more time licking himself than engaging in civil conversation you need to bring down the hammer.
Literally a guard claimed he was a demon and brought a maul down on to his face. I let it be a critical hit.

In my opinion all races are good but you need to realize how to play what.

I've met people that have played amazing Tengu and Drow that had human interests and personality.
Then I've met people that play Drizz't and the raven from Edgar Allan Poe, cool concept poorly executed.

The only thing a knee-jerk reaction proves is that you have knees, and you're ...

The correct action would have been to have talked to the player away from the game and tell him what's what. Punishing the character for what is obviously a player problem is just treating the symptoms, not the cause.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

aceDiamond wrote:

I've never played a game where races were so much discouraged, but that I could feel the GM had a certain feeling about some races. Like one guy who said that he was really hoping I didn't pick one of the quote unquote "furry races". Mostly, I go human if I'm a caster, since the favored class bonuses make me happy, but I've also shown much love for the Tengu. Maybe it's just me, but I love that race. It's got good flavor and makes for some particularly interesting builds, especially as a gunslinger.

DMs are weird.* I actually had a furry in my player group for about a year, and he always played some kind of anthro race. And not once was it a problem.

Let players play whatever floats their boats, for jeebus' sake. It's just a game.

*I say this as a veteran DM, myself.

I banned all anthropomorphic races, without being given special permission, after a furry ruined my perception of them.

I am sorry but once you have a catfolk that spends more time licking himself than engaging in civil conversation you need to bring down the hammer.
Literally a guard claimed he was a demon and brought a maul down on to his face. I let it be a critical hit.

In my opinion all races are good but you need to realize how to play what.

I've met people that have played amazing Tengu and Drow that had human interests and personality.
Then I've met people that play Drizz't and the raven from Edgar Allan Poe, cool concept poorly executed.

So lemme get this straight; you realize that people can play character concepts well, but you irrevocably banned them because one guy played them in a way you didn't like, and instead of talking to that player about why their behavior wasn't appropriate, you instead went the passive-aggressive route and killed their character with an auto-crit?

I'm not doubting the possibility of the player being a That Guy, but seriously dude?

As I said before I typically limit races. As a DM I'd much prefer to run a game with more human races. The reason is that I rarely see players play up the racial side of their character -- especially the core demi-humans like Elf, Dwarf, Gnome and Halflings and half-elves. I'm of the opinion that if you are playing a race and that race never comes into any role-playing aspect at all, then why aren't you playing human? The reason is because people choose races based on optimization -- IN MY EXPERIENCE. They pick a race whose ability modifiers compliment their choice in class. This is not always the case but in 90 percent this is what I see. I mean they justify in character creation and then forget about it. Again, these are my experiences. Mileage may vary.

Have you tried presenting situations in which their race actually matters in a roleplay perspective? I know as a player I've run into the problem where I don't get the opportunity to play up my race. For example, I made a tengu in PFS and shaped his backstory heavily by the fact that, from what I read, tengu were heavily discriminated against, so he is often bitter and doesn't trust a lot of non-tengu unless they show that they can be trusted, but whenever I played him it never came up so I never got to roleplay that part of his personality.

Same with my half-orc alchemist, who is very concerned with not appearing savage and is very paranoid about being called stupid or a brute, but that never comes up either. Granted, I know this is PFS where there are time constraints, but I've seen it happen in some home games too. I've also seen situations where the player's race did in fact matter, like in a home game when our party had to travel into a kingdom in which catfolk were third-class citizens, and half of our party was catfolk.

I guess my point is, if you're concerned about the player's race mattering for roleplay purposes, then make it matter. Present some situations in which it can be used for roleplaying, be it encountering racist characters or maybe running into a member of that race who is all like "finally another person like me around!" or something. And again, remember that not everyone is interested in the same things; some people like the play the game on the basis of mechanics and that's fine. Some people just won't be that vested in roleplay and that's fine too. Some people might not get all into the roleplay of their race but they like the idea of their character not being human, and that's ok too.

I suppose I am just kinda annoyed. Like I said before, the wide variety of races is one of the reasons I actually play pathfinder, and I'm perfectly fine with races being restricted due to plot or balance reasons, but when the reason is "they can't be roleplayed well" or "people only play them for the stats, therefore I don't want them" or "people just use them as a crutch for making interesting characters" I can't help but feel a tad bit indignant, if that makes any sense.

As I said before I typically limit races. As a DM I'd much prefer to run a game with more human races. The reason is that I rarely see players play up the racial side of their character -- especially the core demi-humans like Elf, Dwarf, Gnome and Halflings and half-elves. I'm of the opinion that if you are playing a race and that race never comes into any role-playing aspect at all, then why aren't you playing human? The reason is because people choose races based on optimization -- IN MY EXPERIENCE. They pick a race whose ability modifiers compliment their choice in class. This is not always the case but in 90 percent this is what I see. I mean they justify in character creation and then forget about it. Again, these are my experiences. Mileage may vary.

Hell

2 of the core races and

10 of the Races in the ARG are essentially pallet swapped humans

Half Elf
Half Orc
Tiefling
Aasimaar
Suli
Fetchling
Oread
Sylph
Undine
Ifrit
Changeling
Samsaran

the following 4 core races and the following advanced races are just humans with odd quirks

Dwarves (Short Stocky Greedy Humans)
Elves; (Effeminate Humans with pointy ears)
Halflings (Short and Family Oriented Humans)
Gnomes (Short humans with funny colors)

Hobgoblin (Militaristic Humans w/ Green Skin)
Orc (Tribal Humans with Green Skin)
Drow (Dark skinned humans from a messed up spider loving matriarchy)
Duergar (Short, Stocky, Joyless Humans)

I think the best approach is to combine the two concepts into something like 'variety'; that is to say, allow a small number of races (I go with 7, as that is the number of races available in core), but switch them up whenever you start a new campaign.

For instance, I am working on polishing a campaign I wrote a while ago, and the races I've allowed are: Human, Changeling, Duergar, Locathah, Hobgoblin, Gillmen, and Ratfolk. It gives a fair bit of diversity (hopefully at least one race will appeal to each person), and it is limited enough so that each race can have certain storyline implications to it (i.e. race matters).

If I were to run that campaign (again), then the next one I run would have a different 7 races. That way, I could maintain both an interesting quantity AND quality, just over the course of several campaigns rather than a single one.

As a customer, there has been something of a freak race/arms race in the sense of 'what weird/cool race I can come up with to sell to the customers'. I'm somewhat annoyed at this trend, especially when they do a bad job of it IMHO.

As a playerI remember way back in junior high when I was reading about Tanis Half elf and, looking back, really liking the fact that he was a half elf being central to his character. Spock, as a Vulcan is another example of someone's race being core to who they were.

But now a days half elves are a 'boring core' race and a lot of players don't give said race a second thought. I think this is unfortunate. It discourages us from doing a complete characterization but also avoiding the stereotypes of "I'm dwarf from central casting member 4a".

It's what I try to do with my non humans; make their non humanity central to who they are, even if you are optinmizing, yet also think about how they became unique individuals.

If you do that with a dwarf/whatever, you can just be cool as any 'exotic' and then 101 options are redundant.

As a DM I often impliment a 'one wookie rule' as in the first player to ask for something weird i.e. the less common options in the advanced race guide can go for it, and everyone else has to be core.

I general quality over quantity.

This issue points out that the maxim "more options = always better" simply isn't true. There's always a tradeoff.

As a DM, I see no reason to limit options unless people want them to be limited.

As a player, I prefer having more to choose from since I find Humanity as a whole to be boring.

Lastly, I find if funny how elitism shows up here with that whole "well my players are over that silly phase" thing.

I heard of one old school DM who made anyone who wanted to play any kind of demihuman roll a d4. If they rolled a 4, they could play whatever they wanted; anything else, and they had to be human.

As a DM I often impliment a 'one wookie rule' as in the first player to ask for something weird i.e. the less common options in the advanced race guide can go for it, and everyone else has to be core.

I general quality over quantity.

Well said! This is exactly the name we give the rule as well!

Every adventuring party has mindspace for one oddball character (the wookie). But for that oddball to have room to shine you need the rest of the group to be normal.

If the party is just a whacky menagerie it raises all kinds of problems. A village of rural bumpkins would likely tolerate a party like this (while giving long stares to the wookie). But they would simply have nothing to do with a total freak party. Their minds wouldn't have anywhere to find purchase.

Multiply this times all the villages encountered in a campaign and it gets more exhausting than fun. So you start to just forget about that aspect and the verisimilitude suffers.

How would the "one wookie rule" work if EVERYONE wants an "odd" race?

Kerney wrote:

As a DM I often impliment a 'one wookie rule' as in the first player to ask for something weird i.e. the less common options in the advanced race guide can go for it, and everyone else has to be core.

I general quality over quantity.

Every adventuring party has mindspace for one oddball character (the wookie). But for that oddball to have room to shine you need the rest of the group to be normal.

If the party is just a whacky menagerie it raises all kinds of problems. A village of rural bumpkins would likely tolerate a party like this (while giving long stares to the wookie). But they would simply have nothing to do with a total freak party. Their minds wouldn't have anywhere to find purchase.

Multiply this times all the villages encountered in a campaign and it gets more exhausting than fun. So you start to just forget about that aspect and the verisimilitude suffers.

So the core assumption is that EVERYONE is a xenophobe / racist / speciesist? I would at least let the party have the benefit of the doubt unless certain factors are put in.

There is no good reason for them to act in an unfriendly manner to an elf just because he happens to have pointy ears and a slender build.

How would the "one wookie rule" work if EVERYONE wants an "odd" race?

Simple. Not everyone gets to play one. Pick something else.

Properly shepherding the beginning of a campaign is one of the more difficult jobs a DM has. But with a group of mature players it won't ever really be an issue.

I'm lucky in that I've never had a player throw a tantrum if they couldn't play that Dark Elf ranger with a dark past. They just come up with some other awesome idea and we get on with the fun.

Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do.

No offense, but I just don't like the way you run things. You're free to DM as you see fit, however. Different strokes for different folks.

Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do.

Isn't this essentially what every DM thinks?

Some people insist the way they DM is the only right way to do so, and everyone else is committing the sin of badwrongfun.

I'd prefer not to associate with them, but they're either a vocal minority or an alarming majority around these parts of the forum.

How would the "one wookie rule" work if EVERYONE wants an "odd" race?

Democratus wrote:

Kerney wrote:

As a DM I often impliment a 'one wookie rule' as in the first player to ask for something weird i.e. the less common options in the advanced race guide can go for it, and everyone else has to be core.

I general quality over quantity.

Every adventuring party has mindspace for one oddball character (the wookie). But for that oddball to have room to shine you need the rest of the group to be normal.

If the party is just a whacky menagerie it raises all kinds of problems. A village of rural bumpkins would likely tolerate a party like this (while giving long stares to the wookie). But they would simply have nothing to do with a total freak party. Their minds wouldn't have anywhere to find purchase.

Multiply this times all the villages encountered in a campaign and it gets more exhausting than fun. So you start to just forget about that aspect and the verisimilitude suffers.

So the core assumption is that EVERYONE is a xenophobe / racist / speciesist? I would at least let the party have the benefit of the doubt unless certain factors are put in.

As an example, if a region has been known to suffer from orc attacks, the populace would not take kindly to an orc or a half-orc walking around.

There is no good reason for them to act in an unfriendly manner to an elf just because he happens to have pointy ears and a slender build.

An elf is a standard race. I wouldn't have any problem at all with an elf walking into a small village.

But if the party has nothing remotely familiar as a 'civilized' race: clockwork man, giant bug (thri-kreen), kobold and awakened bear - yes...there will be trouble.

It would be a bizarre world if this weren't the case.

Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do.

No offense, but I just don't like the way you run things. You're free to DM as you see fit, however. Different strokes for different folks.

Wow. That's pretty personal and offensive.

I think making a call that I'm a poor DM based on my stance on a single pre-game setup issue is a bit sweeping.

But no worries. Everyone has their own preferences.

I've run games personally and professionally for thousands of players over several decades. The vast majority of them managed to have a good time.

Proof's in the pudding.

I did not intend to sound offensive. And really, if people like the way you DM, good for them.

All I was saying was that I am not of those players who would enjoy it. That's all there is to it on my end.

Icyshadow wrote:

How would the "one wookie rule" work if EVERYONE wants an "odd" race?

Democratus wrote:

Kerney wrote:

As a DM I often impliment a 'one wookie rule' as in the first player to ask for something weird i.e. the less common options in the advanced race guide can go for it, and everyone else has to be core.

I general quality over quantity.

Every adventuring party has mindspace for one oddball character (the wookie). But for that oddball to have room to shine you need the rest of the group to be normal.

If the party is just a whacky menagerie it raises all kinds of problems. A village of rural bumpkins would likely tolerate a party like this (while giving long stares to the wookie). But they would simply have nothing to do with a total freak party. Their minds wouldn't have anywhere to find purchase.

Multiply this times all the villages encountered in a campaign and it gets more exhausting than fun. So you start to just forget about that aspect and the verisimilitude suffers.

So the core assumption is that EVERYONE is a xenophobe / racist / speciesist? I would at least let the party have the benefit of the doubt unless certain factors are put in.

As an example, if a region has been known to suffer from orc attacks, the populace would not take kindly to an orc or a half-orc walking around.

There is no good reason for them to act in an unfriendly manner to an elf just because he happens to have pointy ears and a slender build.

An elf is a standard race. I wouldn't have any problem at all with an elf walking into a small village.

But if the party has nothing remotely familiar as a 'civilized' race: clockwork man, giant bug (thri-kreen), kobold and awakened bear - yes...there will be trouble.

It would be a bizarre world if this weren't the case.

So a world where dragons, flumphs, ettins and reality-warping magic exist is not bizarre by default in your opinion?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept that. Even low-level clerics and wizards can pull off some fantastic stuff, regardless of race.

Really, if something unusual frightens people or turns them hostile, then that will happen regardless of the appearance of the one doing the scaring.

It's a phase that RPG groups go through... but also a phase that RPG systems go through. Anybody remember when 3.5 groups always had a whisper gnome, a goliath and an elan in 'em? ;)

That's because those races were rally overpowered (well the goliath and whisper gnome were, don't know about elan, never played psionics).