I've always thought it could be interesting to do something like Magic: the Gathering for a campaign. In the same way tournaments in that game only allow specific sets, thus creating different strategies and new metas, it could be an interesting challenge to do "Core + 1 other book" for the table. That way you can really focus on horror or intrigue or psionics in your campaign.This should be the norm; the GM tells everyone what kind of a game they're running: what system, what materials will be allowed, the nature of the campaign, the length of it, houserules, etc.
Well sure. But in my experience, folks who get into 1e Pathfinder are excited by the prospect of a million and one options.YMMV, but in my experience there tends to be a hew and cry whenever the restrictions come out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Description of half-orcs from PF2e. Yes, it's a different game but it's the same setting. It's apparent Paizo regrets including sexual violence in on of their core race's description.
They did that years ago, actually:
"Despite the typical somber assumptions of their origins, half-orcs in human societies can also range from children of assimilated half-orc parents to orphaned foundlings to the bastard offspring of lovers, fostered out because their appearance reveals their non-human parentage." Bastards of Golarion pg. 10
"Settlements composed primarily of half-orcs are rare, but many of the Inner Sea's more cosmopolitan cities include small half-orc communities, and a few dozen half-orc hamlets are scattered about the fringes of civilization. The largest and most stable half-orc community is Averaka, a town in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings.
While some half-orcs are the direct offspring of a human and an orc, it's increasingly common for that mixing to be farther back in half-orcs' family trees, and the proportion of orc versus human blood varies between individuals." ibid. pg. 11
"Averaka sports a few human and dwarven inhabitants, but the Flintyreach settlement was originally founded by a small group of forward-thinking half-orcs. It remains a sanctuary for their kind to this day. The half-orcs of Averaka have an almost religious attitude toward making a space in the world for half-orcs to live unmolested, and they are at the forefront of the effort to clear the isle of Flintyreach for habitation and fight off the giants who still hold sway over several of the isle’s inland peaks. Half-orcs from across Avistan have made Averaka their home, and the number of languages spoken and customs observed by its residents makes it as cosmopolitan as many major cities." Lands of the Linnorm Kings pg. 23
I've always thought it could be interesting to do something like Magic: the Gathering for a campaign. In the same way tournaments in that game only allow specific sets, thus creating different strategies and new metas, it could be an interesting challenge to do "Core + 1 other book" for the table.
They did, it's called "second edition".
The problem with your concept is that keeping the CRB always 'legal' completely ruins balance. Just like a Standard/Type 2 format where Alpha/Beta were always the allowed core set would be utterly dominated by the old cards (P9 etc.).
What you could do is allow only a specific set of classes, or mandate archetypes form specific books.
Well sure. But in my experience, folks who get into 1e Pathfinder are excited by the prospect of a million and one options.YMMV, but in my experience there tends to be a hew and cry whenever the restrictions come out.
That's because allowing more books makes the game much better. The CRB was ridiculously imbalanced, with full casters already operating at almost full strengths, while martials were almost disfunctional. Allowing more books lessens the martial/caster disparity, and even beyond that it can help people fulfill character concepts that would be weak otherwise. For example, Virtuos Bravo is basically much better for playing a three-musketeers-style character than Swashbuckler is.
Exactly. It's kind of mind-blowing to me that there are tables that regularly go "all of it", to the point that it's assumed to be the norm.
Also, I'm glad Paizo changed it up with half-orcs later.
Barring Sacred Geometry, there's nothing in the later books that's stronger than a CRB Druid/Wizard.
Unless Paizo completely redid the lore for Orcs as well, it'll probably remain an unfortunate connecting of the dots when you have a player race with a parent from a generally evil race.
You have to allow all of it just to try keep up with a generic Wizard as anyone other than a Wizard. Which is fine. It's better to raise everything else up, than to lower the Wizard. But still, it's kind of ridiculous.
That being said, if you are going to allow all of it, might as well go gestalt, too. Now we have OPTIONS!
Two points:
1. I was not suggesting a limitation on books for mechanical balance. It was a suggestion for storytelling. Monks, gunslingers and frog/bird/rat/lizard people do not fit very well into a lot of different stories.
2. In terms of balance, I've found extensive houseruling to be a perfectly adequate substitute for allowing everything ever, always.
I am not familiar with spheres of might or gestalt or mythic, but when I'm helping with character creation by making adjustments to race, class, archetypes, feats, spells and items on a case-by-case basis every time, I can safely say that none of my players felt like the balance between characters was inherently skewed.
The issue is that spells are so inherently powerful you don't even really need to try to make a god wizard. That's just playing the game.
One of my personal pet peeves is how spells completely replace skills very early into the game. Access to Spider Climb at level 3-4 means you never need to have a party member trained in Climbing. One person climbs up, secures a rope, the rest climb up. Done.
There are all sorts of spells that just invalidate skill point expenditures. Not practical with spontaneous spellcasters but prepared casters who can fill up empty spellslots with a bit of time can solve problems that would normally default to other party members.
Spells make a lot of things irrelevant. The proverbial Swiss army knife/I got a spell for that invalidates entire classes.
But, to swing this back to the original topic of weird races and such, magic also invalidates the mechanical benefits of a lot of races. The ability you are looking for in whatever weird race you have found it in is also a spell, might even be a Cantrip.
Darkvision? Yep. Ability bonuses? Yep. Various movement speeds? Yep.
No matter how weird of a race you have chosen, you could have been a human with some spells and made choosing whatever weird race completely unnecessary. But what is the fun in that?
A world full of human Wizards is not a fantasy world that inspires me. No matter what the fantasy setting is, there better be A LOT more out there than boring freaking humans. I can see humans everyday, everywhere in real life... I desire my fantasy world to be different from my real life.
How stifling it must be to have such a lack of variety, even in a fantasy world. You can be human, a Halfling that looks like a small human with hairy feet, a Gnome that looks like a small human, are dwarves allowed? Yes, but only if they look like thicc hairy humans. Elves? Sure, but they have to look human with pointy ears.
I actually WANT green-skinned half-orcs and four-armed aliens. The abundance of weird races actually helps the whole fantasy thing, for me, at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always thought it could be interesting to do something like Magic: the Gathering for a campaign.[tangent] I'm still flummoxed that there isn't a game setting for D&D using the Magic the Gathering world and magic system. A blue mage whose magic is all about counterspells, like the old blue 'denial decks' you used to see? Just fun. And the world itself seems pretty richly detailed, so much of the creative heavy lifting is already done. And, hey, topic, depending on what 'color' you play, 'monsters' ranging from goblins to merpeople to plant-folk to undead to centaurs could be playable options for the non-mages in the party! [/tangent]
we ran a game based around MtG. The Planeswalkers took the place of gods in a normal DnD game and the PCs were their "summons", or the champions they called to go mess up the plans of the other Planeswalkers. Each Planeswalker had a theme like the gods, that were represented in their "deck" which were a bunch of magical effects and artifacts that the PCs could call down to help them in a Duel (read; adventure). The spells and artifacts all had mana costs, which were drawn from the lands under control by the Planeswalker and many adventures were centered around gaining new lands and spells/artifacts for the Planeswalker. Was a lot of fun, especially since there are so many MtG card generators, so we could make our own unique cards
No matter what the fantasy setting is, there better be A LOT more out there than boring freaking humans. I can see humans everyday, everywhere in real life... I desire my fantasy world to be different from my real life.
Like I always say, "I roleplay a normal human every day I walk out my front door. Why would I want to play one when I am trying to escape that."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter what the fantasy setting is, there better be A LOT more out there than boring freaking humans. I can see humans everyday, everywhere in real life... I desire my fantasy world to be different from my real life.Like I always say, "I roleplay a normal human every day I walk out my front door. Why would I want to play one when I am trying to escape that."
My counterpoint to that would be:
You roleplay a normal human in real life, but you're not role playing a normal human in this game. You're an adventurer. You don't have a 9 to 5 job you go to every day. You put yourself in mortal peril frequently, solving quests, and often killing other sentient beings which you often justify as being for the greater good.
Nothing about that is "normal".
My point being that role playing has very little dependence on your race, and for the most part you can explore the same ideas regardless of what race a character is.
A major problem of it is that most races are little more than rubber forehead aliens, their just humans with some specific cultural assumptions that are still pretty in the realm of human action/thought.
Edit: This is anecdotal, and only representative on one particular player I had in a campaign. They wanted a weird 3rd party race that they were super excited about. When I checked it out I personally felt that mechanically it was too powerful, offered to allow the player to the race, but not with all the racial abilities and ability point bonus in favor of something that was more in line with core races. The player didn't like that offer because what they wanted specifically were the mechanical benefits.
It went without saying in my opinion, the player was only interested in the RP and culture of the race because of the mechanical benefits it had.
To answer the OP- because weird races are different and cool and catch people's imagination differently.
I'm almost not at all interested in drow or half-orcs, but tengu and ratfolk and genie-touched all interest me.
I'm going to intentionally ignore both the "why are wizards too good" and "half orcs equal rape" parts of the thread, except to say that the reason half orcs exist is because 3.0 DnD originally gave full orcs +6 Strength for -2 Int, wis, cha making them both OP and crippled-- somewhere along the way orcs should have just been made +2 STR, +2 Con, -2 cha (or int) and been done with it.
The issue is that spells are so inherently powerful you don't even really need to try to make a god wizard. That's just playing the game.I've played with people playing wizards. I've never played with anyone playing a god wizard. I HAVE played with players who would play god wizards, but prefer martials or gish characters.I've got a player in 2 of my 3 campaigns that always plays wizards or multiclass wizard/x characters. While I've had GOD wizards in my games, or even wizards who make good use of their spells to nullify the skill use of their other party members, here's something I've noticed anecdotally from this particular player: wizard dominance is all about spell choice and availability.
Now this player is very experienced and knows what he's doing, but he rarely diversifies his spell list beyond the couple he gets per level, and in those he takes fairly generic, AoE damage or Core book battlefield control/movement spells. He has never once cast Haste in any of my games, and I've only seen one of his PCs cast Enlarge Person.
The other thing is until I really pushed him on this he never really made scrolls. He ALWAYS makes Wondrous Items, once took Craft Wand, but his feat choices tend to be less optimal or item crafting feats.
Because of Feat choice and an aversion to crafting consumables in favor of saving money for bigger items, this player's casters rarely have more spells than his daily allotment avail. This means that, if he has a wand with a fire spell and a couple level 2 and 3 fire spells and the PCs come up against a Large Fire Elemental, this player is relegated to casting Ray of Frost for an entire fight (an actual scenario that played out) and when those big damage resources run out, his character(s) are often useless.
My point is that dominating the game with a wizard, or really any kind of Arcane caster, is as much about the player than it is the class chosen. Just because a wizard CAN cast a spell that makes...
Are you sure they wouldn't be better off playing a sorcerer?
My counterpoint to that would be:
Yeah ... No. You don't get it.
It's not mechanics. I've played races that I never used a racial ability because I liked the flavor of the race. Humans, they just don't interest me.
My counterpoint to that would be:Yeah ... No. You don't get it.
It's not mechanics. I've played races that I never used a racial ability because I liked the flavor of the race. Humans, they just don't interest me.
You missed my counterpoint which was every character can be interesting regardless of race, and a "unique" race doesn't necessarily make a character more interesting.
Regardless of the mechanics behind the races, how interesting a character is really depends on how you role play it.
Perhaps for you the character is more interesting if it's of an unusual race. But for other players they probably are more grabbed by how you role play than what race is listed on your character sheet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, mechanics and story can both make characters interesting, but the thing of it is- how do you get to the interesting story?
The mechanics and or the background information about the races give some people seeds of ideas to access their characters and create a better background and then roleplay them more interesting.
Samsaran is the perfect example-- could you just decide to play a human who believes in past lives?
Sure. Maybe there's a class or archetype who gets you thinking in that vein, but if you're ready Samsaran and that type of character appeals to you it's an instant "in" to get into the head space of the character you're making.
I can get that kind of in with humans as well, but then it has to come from either something in the class/archetype or from something in the campaign story/the setting-- with a non-human race I get a third set of "stuff" to give me story ideas to blend because I get a racial identity on top of the national identity and the class "job/role" identity all before I start adding and blending the elements together.
Yes- mechanics can play a part too, particularly when you are hunting for just the right set of paired +2s to get both your two "important" stats-- especially for classes that need combinations of Int/Wis/Cha-- few "standard" classes will give you +Wis/Cha or +Int/Wis.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You missed my counterpoint which was every character can be interesting regardless of race, and a "unique" race doesn't necessarily make a character more interesting.
To you. My opinion is different. Others share a similar opinion. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong for you. But your opinion is not what I want.
You missed my counterpoint which was every character can be interesting regardless of race, and a "unique" race doesn't necessarily make a character more interesting.To you. My opinion is different. Others share a similar opinion. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong for you. But your opinion is not what I want.
I will agree to disagree, in a respectful manner, but wholly and firmly do not agree with your position.
Edit: Do allow me to expand on something, I generally will not stop people from playing unusual races if I GM, nor do I bat at eye when other players bring unusual races. I certainly play uncommon races from time to time, usually because it helps the mechanical concept I was going for (ability score bonuses line up). But as a GM I will stop players from playing races that are "overly munchkin-ed" selections like playing a Tiefling with oversized limbs for extra weapon damage size. I will allow a tiefling, but you're not getting to select from that table. If you insist on playing a tiefling and want a shot at that bonus, we can roll on the table for.
But none of the unusual race characters have been more interesting (than common race characters) to play or play at the table with because of their race.
I think a big factor that plays into a lot of this is connection. Accessibility.
I am a human being. Playing a human being is easy for me, because I intimately understand what it is to be a human without effort.
Elves and dwarves and such are not human, so it takes a little more effort for me to get in that "other" mindset. Lizardfolk are substantially more different than elves and dwarves, mindflayers are way different from lizardfolk and xorn are different from mindflayers.
At a certain point, the distance becomes too great and I can't access the idea, can't relate or connect to it. I can portray a paranoid, subterranean creature that hails from a distant world, but I probably cannot meaningfully convey what a sentient manifestation of the color blue that exists at all moments in time at once would be like.
In my games, I usually try to cultivate a sense of wonder. That's a major priority for me. But...if my party consists of three anthropomorphic animals and two people who can trace their ancestry back to Heaven and Hell, it's hard to cultivate the wonder when the player's own characters are sources of wonder themselves. So I either have to dial up the crazy to even higher levels to compensate for the fantasy desensitization or put some pretty hard limits on what is or isn't allowed.
I like presenting classic tropes in new light. If I can make elves seem eerie and surreal to a diehard Wow player or make a horror movie junkie feel uncomfortable with my zombies, I've accomplished my goal. But to do that...probably no half-demons or tiger people in that game, no.
Thing is, not everyone plays something best because they are it.
Not sure I follow. My point was that being able to relate to a fantasy race will make it easier to understand, connect to and portray such, and the further you get from those "norms", the harder it becomes.
I have an easier time relating to something the further it is, biology-wise, from human...
Oh, I see. Yeah, sure. I still think relatability is important; a tengu is much easier to portray consistently than a mindflayer, simply because it's a more or less natural creature, with recognizable desires and motivations and an understandable, if unfamiliar, culture. The illithid is a hyper-genius alien from the future who's mind is so foreign, so potent and so horrible that exposure to it can leave people reeling and senseless while it eats their brains.
But with all the said, it's definitely not my main reason for running my table the way I do. It's just a matter of what kind of story I want to tell, and how to support its tone and themes.
Well, THe current group I'm in(ANd the GM did some gyrations to make sure all of these options woudl be equivalent and gradually come into abilities et al, but:
A winter Witch Creepy doll halfling who casts no shadow, A yeti Bloodrager, the Yeti's sister(Yes, I said sister. Its a complicated family) The Yeti has two sisters, a Halfling and a 'human', a human changeling Psychic marauder, a FOrlaaren Kineticist, A human ROgue and a HUman Hunter with a dinosaur companion. They aren't exactly normal and do tend to attract glances.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But none of the unusual race characters have been more interesting (than common race characters) to play or play at the table with because of their race.
Some of us want fur and a tail in real life and outside of larping, this is the closest we'll ever come. Some just want to imagine themselves as having such attributes. Some just like the idea of triangular-shaped ears on the tops of our heads.
Some want wings. Butterfly wings. Feathery angelic wings. Bat-like wings. Skeletal wings. Big wings. Comedically tiny wings. Some don't even care if we can use them, just the ability to imagine ourselves with them.
Some want feathers. Some want claws. Some want eyes of a different shape or size. Some want scales. Some want skin that changes color with their mood.
To such people, there is nothing interesting about playing a human. Frequently we'll play an elf or a dwarf or one of the other core book races, but it frequently is because we don't know the group and don't want to show that part of ourselves yet. Being human is a straight jacket that we tolerate in our daily lives and we don't really want to do so in our own imaginations.
It is about how we see ourselves that we want to play, to be. Some it is not a full identity as much as an aspect of ourselves that we want to let out. Some it is just how we would like to see ourselves. Some just like to playing such races over others.
So I am sorry, but I can't agree to disagree. Your opinion is your opinion. But saying someone else's opinion is wrong for themselves is forcing your opinion on them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But...if my party consists of three anthropomorphic animals and two people who can trace their ancestry back to Heaven and Hell, it's hard to cultivate the wonder when the player's own characters are sources of wonder themselves. So I either have to dial up the crazy to even higher levels to compensate for the fantasy desensitization or put some pretty hard limits on what is or isn't allowed.
But do you really? If you can imagine a tribe of orcs living in the wilderness between two cities, why can't you imagine a tribe of cat people? If you can imagine the family next door consisting of a human, an elf, and their half elf child, why is it so hard to imagine a human, someone that is the child if a demon three generations removed and their child that is now four generations removed? I imagine that family would love for you to bring them chocolate chip cookies on Life Day just as much as the human-elf couple.
Just because they were born different doesn't mean they are immersed in otherliness. Hack real world for that. Why not have humans go to tengu restaurants where there is something on the menu that would never try because those are the good ones. Or the latest elven fashion mixing traditional elven with a celestial flare.
Remember, trade on the silk road happened in dark/middle ages. While few western Europeans of the time may ever have gone to China, some did and trade happened as well. Even if you don't bring in such races, you should at least add in their trade goods.
But none of the unusual race characters have been more interesting (than common race characters) to play or play at the table with because of their race.Some of us want fur and a tail in real life and outside of larping, this is the closest we'll ever come. Some just want to imagine themselves as having such attributes. Some just like the idea of triangular-shaped ears on the tops of our heads.
Some want wings. Butterfly wings. Feathery angelic wings. Bat-like wings. Skeletal wings. Big wings. Comedically tiny wings. Some don't even care if we can use them, just the ability to imagine ourselves with them.
Some want feathers. Some want claws. Some want eyes of a different shape or size. Some want scales. Some want skin that changes color with their mood.
To such people, there is nothing interesting about playing a human. Frequently we'll play an elf or a dwarf or one of the other core book races, but it frequently is because we don't know the group and don't want to show that part of ourselves yet. Being human is a straight jacket that we tolerate in our daily lives and we don't really want to do so in our own imaginations.
It is about how we see ourselves that we want to play, to be. Some it is not a full identity as much as an aspect of ourselves that we want to let out. Some it is just how we would like to see ourselves. Some just like to playing such races over others.
So I am sorry, but I can't agree to disagree. Your opinion is your opinion. But saying someone else's opinion is wrong for themselves is forcing your opinion on them.
Let me attempt to clarify my understanding here:
A) Your point is that unusual races are generally more interesting orB) Your point is that unusual races are generally more interesting for you
Because I wont disagree with B. I've already stated that as a GM I don't stop players from playing unusual races unless I find them to be a problem mechanically. But as a GM I absolutely don't find them automatically more interesting than more common races. And the NPCs in my game world aren't likely to be phased/interested by their other-worldliness anymore than they are by the wizard who can conjure all sorts of magic or the fighter who can kill a dragon in 6 seconds or any other adventurer.
They way I understand your original position was the assertion of A. But perhaps I misunderstood and you're really just arguing for B.
In which case my honest response is: I don't care, play what you want to play (as long as it's not a mechanical problem). But (to my players) I would have them bear in mind that no individual character gets that much screen time (relative to others) so you're probably not going to be exploring with the group what it means to be an animal or anything like that. It's just not what the gaming group is there for as an experience, unless you explicitly recruit for such a game.
*The default assumption for a Pathfinder gaming group I would say is "adventuring" unless it is communicated otherwise. That doesn't mean there can't be room for expanded RP or exploration of unusual ideas, but it's just typically not the default and requires a substantial amount of time when adventure paths already take a substantial amount of time to get through.
Let me attempt to clarify my understanding here:
A) Your point is that unusual races are generally more interesting or
B) Your point is that unusual races are generally more interesting for you
I have been arguing nothing but B.
My arguments have been (bold added for emphasis):
But your opinion is not what I want.
Humans, they just don't interest me.
"I roleplay a normal human every day I walk out my front door. Why would I want to play one when I am trying to escape that."
Let me attempt to clarify my understanding here:
A) Your point is that unusual races are generally more interesting or
B) Your point is that unusual races are generally more interesting for youI have been arguing nothing but B.
My arguments have been (bold added for emphasis):
But your opinion is not what I want.
Humans, they just don't interest me.
"I roleplay a normal human every day I walk out my front door. Why would [b]I want to play one when I am trying to escape that."
Then I misunderstood your position, and for that I'm sorry.
Edit: And my response to that statement was about how adventures, even human adventurers, aren't normal everyday humans.
Which is tautologically a true statement.
And then you went on to say that really it's really about getting to imagine yourself as a beast-person (I think that was the thrust of it anyways) which is a different argument that wanting to play something that isn't a "normal everyday human".
Then I misunderstood your position, and for that I'm sorry.
No worries. Glad to help you see a different point of view.
But (to my players) I would have them bear in mind that no individual character gets that much screen time (relative to others) so you're probably not going to be exploring with the group what it means to be an animal or anything like that.
It doesn't have to be anything they want explored by the GM. Sometimes it is just about how a player wants to see themselves. Wings a particular favorite of mine to exemplify such a detail. I once made a race for myself that had comedically small wings, once that had absolutely no possibility of creating lift. Did they give a mechanical benefit at all, no. I did that because I wanted to image that hero character of mine with wings. If I had to create a whole new race to do so, so be it.
* For the record, I am not talking about half-faerie dragons. This was before this was written.
I only mentioned that bit because our gaming group once had a player show up who was new to the group and proceeded to take 30 minutes of group time to start explaining their character's background and then the started into the minutiae of exploring the philosophical difference between their character's race (I don't recall what it was) and I felt bad but we had to stop them and say something to the effect of "We don't mean to be rude but we meet for 5-6 hours once every two weeks, we don't really do this sort of thing, we *try to focus on the adventure and not get bogged down into any one character's experience or thought and focus on the collective experience."
*Try is an operative word because we often get distracted with rules discussion or current events.
It doesn't mean you can't RP, but it does mean you need to keep it relatively short and sweet as we're trying to keep the game moving.
As it sits it usually takes our group over a year to complete a single AP.
What are the mechanical issues people bring up as objections to different races?
I understand the math involved with ability score bonuses, but I don't see any races that are anymore powerful in this regard than the Kobold is weak. Nobody gives the Kobold extra help because they chose a pathetic chicken-lizard as their character race. Nobody should ban, or worse, nerf Noble Drow or Ogrillon characters, either.
As far as races interfering with setting/theme... come on. You walk 100 meters outside the trading post and find a cricket the size of a housecat, with the upper body of an elven woman. But a Tengu or a Ratfolk is too big of a jump to fit in? You are fighting dragons, or zombies, or abominations with no discernable form... but you can't include a Kasatha or a Strix?
If your scope is so incredibly narrow and inflexible, you have my sympathy.
But do you really? If you can imagine a tribe of orcs living in the wilderness between two cities, why can't you imagine a tribe of cat people? If you can imagine the family next door consisting of a human, an elf, and their half elf child, why is it so hard to imagine a human, someone that is the child if a demon three generations removed and their child that is now four generations removed?
No, not independently. But if there are orcs AND cat people AND demon people AND AND AND--that can cause significant tonal shifts in the story.
Just because they were born different doesn't mean they are immersed in otherliness.
Not necessarily, no. In this Wardian (Pendletonian?) fantasy setting I'm working on, humans will be oddities and outcasts, where the beastlings, elementals and robos have long since become the dominant peoples.
But in my grim n' gritty, common-people-don't-believe-in-magic-or-dragons setting? Yeah. A part-angel person or a reptile man will be otherworldly in the extreme.Even if you don't bring in such races, you should at least add in their trade goods.
In some of my games, I'll say "this will take place in World X, specifically in Location Y. So...humans, halflings, half-elves and elves only." But in all of my games, I'll say "this will take place in World X. So the following races do and do not exist in this world."
Why I choose something most often comes down to me wanting to play as a chicken-lizard (the Kung-fu Kobold), or a handsome Drow Noble, or a full blood Elf because I hadn't played as one before Variel.
Oh yeah, I had to adjust my stats after I chose my race. Apparently each race has different stat modifiers... who knew?
If I wanted mechanics, I would just always be a Half-Orc for Sacred Tattoos, Shaman's Apprentice, Fate's Favored, Darkvision, a bite attack, and the Falchion/Orc HornBow. Oh, and a floating +2 stat modifier.
Or a Strix, because reasons.
BUT, I haven't played as either of them, to be honest.