| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally find the Core Races to overly rooted in a single man's interpretation of fantasy. Tolkien's works were decent, but he is not the be all end all of fantasy. There are so many fascinating myths, legends and other works of fantasy modern and ancient that restricting things to his vision of Northern European Mythology just feels so anemic.
Doubly so, considering that prior to Tolkien's writing, non-human protagonists essentially did not exist, making the Fellowship of the Ring pretty much a party of freaks by default (Elf Prince, Dwarf Lord, 80% of the adventuring Hobbit population in several centuries, freaking Angel, and a man whose ancestry includes Elves, gods, superhumans and who is secretly the True King. The only semi-normal person in the whole blasted affair is Borimir, and he just so happens to be the only member to permanently die).
I liked LoTR, I just don't want to replay it yet again. If I have to traverse another variation of Not!England in the company of a group of Officially Sanctioned Standard Fantasy Races I may just join the BBEG to put the whole thing out of my misery.
There really isn't room for more than a couple adventuring sophont species in a reasonable world. Advanced tool user is a very exclusive ecological niche and any adventuring species must be competing for the niche in overlapping biomes or they couldn't adventure.
In a realistic hard sci-fi world, perhaps.
In a fantasy realm where the gods intervene to protect their favoured races, there can be as many as we want.
Personally, I find that including as many races as possible gives a very interesting and extremely wierd setting that makes for an astethic you don't see anywhere but in d&d. There's swords, primitive bows, full-plate armor and firearms, all in the same place. Wizards raise great flying cities on top of the ruins of thousand-year-old empires, which were originally constructed amongst the ruins of technological civilizations.
On the other hand, I can see the appeal in limiting races.
I once had a campaign with Humans, Kitsune, Tengu, Tieflings & Wayangs as the standard races, with dwarves being present as a fleet of seafaring explorers, who want to obtain the secrets of manifacturing gunpowder.
Made for a very distinct feel, but you were still able to find a race where you had the stat mods in the right place.
There really isn't room for more than a couple adventuring sophont species in a reasonable world. Advanced tool user is a very exclusive ecological niche and any adventuring species must be competing for the niche in overlapping biomes or they couldn't adventure.In a realistic hard sci-fi world, perhaps.
In a fantasy realm where the gods intervene to protect their favoured races, there can be as many as we want.
Thought-criminal, be aware you are double plus ungood. MiniLove is on the way to provide enhanced education techniques.
For those who need a translation (though I doubt there are many), "You're having bad-wrong-fun and you should feel bad. Also, I'm going to relentlessly force my opinions on you whether you ask for it or not, until such time as you come to agree with me. <IvanDrago>I will break you.</IvanDrago>"
How about we not try to police each others games for having the "wrong" kind of fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There really isn't room for more than a couple adventuring sophont species in a reasonable world. Advanced tool user is a very exclusive ecological niche and any adventuring species must be competing for the niche in overlapping biomes or they couldn't adventure.In a realistic hard sci-fi world, perhaps.
In a fantasy realm where the gods intervene to protect their favoured races, there can be as many as we want.Thought-criminal, be aware you are double plus ungood. MiniLove is on the way to provide enhanced education techniques.
For those who need a translation (though I doubt there are many), "You're having bad-wrong-fun and you should feel bad. Also, I'm going to relentlessly force my opinions on you whether you ask for it or not, until such time as you come to agree with me. <IvanDrago>I will break you.</IvanDrago>"
How about we not try to police each others games for having the "wrong" kind of fun.
Uh ... no. How about you not interpret other peoples' analysis as them accusing each other of 'playing wrong'? Atarlost analyzed things from a realistic perspective, and s/he is pretty much spot-on; I know this, and it is why, in my own home-brew, there are only two native sophont species, and all the rest of them are either slowly-uplifted 'client' species of one (lizardfolk), or experiments or devolved variants of the other. Matthew Downie admitted that while Atarlost was true from a scientific viewpoint, in a classic 'OMG scores of gods, all with their 'SQUEE MY RASES R GRATE!!' attitudes' fantasy campaign, whatever the GM wants can go. He, too, is correct.
So listen to your own advice, and don't try to police their posts either, huh?
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?
My group straight up ignores most races in our games. We always do custom settings, and all contribute. If someone plays a catfolk, they exist in the setting. Usually nomadic, and usually rare.
The main races are a staple (Eleven kingdoms in forests, Dwarves in mountains etc).
We lump goblinoids/ogres/trolls together into a moderately cohesive evil kingdom most of the time. Kobolds too.
Other than that, unless someone plays one, we pretty much just eliminate other races/ignore them completely. We focus on the story, not the setting.
Never even had someone ask to play a Strix or Kitsune, but if they did, I would let them, they would just be from a small/rare group.
In regards to Dwarves/Gnomes/Halflings, I don't see them as the same AT ALL.
In our group, it works like this:
Dwarves: fairly insular, live in fortified mountain cities, somewhat xenophobic, known for crafting/metalworking and greed. Also beer.
Gnomes: fun loving forest dwellers, basically fey, known for magic, randomness, pranks and colorful outfits.
Halflings: think Hobbits from LOTR mixed with more sense of adventure. Small communities exist, but generally just integrate into human society. Known for pilfering, love of food, upbeat attitudes and general sneakiness.
:D
Uh ... no. How about you not interpret other peoples' analysis as them accusing each other of 'playing wrong'? Atarlost analyzed things from a realistic perspective, and s/he is pretty much spot-on; I know this, and it is why, in my own home-brew, there are only two native sophont species, and all the rest of them are either slowly-uplifted 'client' species of one (lizardfolk), or experiments or devolved variants of the other. Matthew Downie admitted that while Atarlost was true from a scientific viewpoint, in a classic 'OMG scores of gods, all with their 'SQUEE MY RASES R GRATE!!' attitudes' fantasy campaign, whatever the GM wants can go. He, too, is correct.*snip**snip**snip*
Except that is not what went down. Atarlost clearly came in with an attitude that his way was the right way and anyone going with the default settings assumptions (with tons of races filling the same niche of advanced tool users within the same or similar biomes) was wrong and should stop playing that way even though he never outright used the phrase "your doing it wrong." If that wasn't what 'lost wanted to imply than he did a bad job at articulating his points and should be called out on it, if only so that he can learn to better articulate his point of view without coming off as hostile.
True both playstyles can exist (never said they couldn't, though obviously not in the same game in this particular case), but one shouldn't try to convince others that their particular style is in any way "less correct" than any other. At the end of the day it comes down to subjective preference and one has to learn to let others have their fun instead of being that guy.
Edit: Oh, and Alexd1976, thank you for being one of those who actually can grok the differences between the smaller folk. I often get exasperated trying to explain how they're different to some local people who can't. So yeah, thanks for helping me avoid a conniption.
|
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.
I'll step in to defend the "deep roleplaying requires worldbuilding" argument.
Roleplaying a non-human race as a human typically involves either segmenting a part of human culture and saying, "these non-humans typically embody this limited range of human behavior; that limited subset of human behavior (or stereotype if you prefer) is what makes klingons klingony or elves elfy." Players usually either embrace these stereotypes ("I'm playing a dwarf so I'll talk about beer in a scottish accent!") or deliberately reject them ("I'm not that kind of dwarf--I don't even like beer and I have an english accent. I'm a special snowflake dwarf!")
Either way, the roleplay of the nonhuman's nonhumanness can be developed to the extent that the stereotype is developed. You can only play to or against stereotypes that actually exist. If they don't exist, you usually end up roleplaying a human with funny mechanics. (I would further argue that roleplaying with the stereotype enables deeper role-playing than roleplaying against the stereotype. If you're playing the dwarf to type, then you can explore his motivations and conflicts within the contexts of dwarfiness without ceasing to talk in your fake accent in between requests for beer. On the other hand, if you're playing "not that kind of dwarf" then the primary element of your roleplay is rejecting the stereotype in order to... explore the full range of human culture and emotions. But if you're exploring the full range of _human_ culture and emotions, then you're only tie to dwarfiness is the mechanics and the bits you are deliberately rejecting).
Now, occasionally, people try to develop some other strictures like the sidhe in the Dresden files books in order to have truly alien elements that are not drawn from or exaggerations of existing human cultures. However, doing that requires quite a bit of worldbuilding too.
This is also one reason that "traditional" fantasy and science fiction races tend to play better than the plethora of "bonus of the month" races. While the game system might only have 3 paragraphs of lore and worldbuilding for any race, players can draw inspiration and worldbuilding from a variety of popular sources in order to more fully inform the roleplay. Players of dwarves can draw from Gimli, Thorin, Balin, and Trumpkin. Players of Forgotten Realms drow will draw from RA Salvatore's books. (Sometimes this can be problematic when players bring in elements that don't fit the game world like a player trying to play a Tolkein halfling in Dark Sun, but on balance it tends to provide inspiration and depth). On the other hand, if you're roleplaying a whatsit, then you only have the 3 paragraphs in the most recent splatbook to work from and whatever depth your character has is probably from backstory sources that have no special relationship to your character's race or their place in the world--in other words, you're playing a human with different bonuses.
Uh ... no. How about you not interpret other peoples' analysis as them accusing each other of 'playing wrong'? Atarlost analyzed things from a realistic perspective, and s/he is pretty much spot-on; I know this, and it is why, in my own home-brew, there are only two native sophont species, and all the rest of them are either slowly-uplifted 'client' species of one (lizardfolk), or experiments or devolved variants of the other. Matthew Downie admitted that while Atarlost was true from a scientific viewpoint, in a classic 'OMG scores of gods, all with their 'SQUEE MY RASES R GRATE!!' attitudes' fantasy campaign, whatever the GM wants can go. He, too, is correct.*snip**snip**snip*Except that is not what went down. Atarlost clearly came in with an attitude that his way was the right way and anyone going with the default settings assumptions (with tons of races filling the same niche of advanced tool users within the same or similar biomes) was wrong and should stop playing that way even though he never outright used the phrase "your doing it wrong." If that wasn't what 'lost wanted to imply than he did a bad job at articulating his points and should be called out on it, if only so that he can learn to better articulate his point of view without coming off as hostile.
True both playstyles can exist (never said they couldn't, though obviously not in the same game in this particular case), but one shouldn't try to convince others that their particular style is in any way "less correct" than any other. At the end of the day it comes down to subjective preference and one has to learn to let others have their fun instead of being that guy.
Edit: Oh, and Alexd1976, thank you for being one of those who actually can grok the differences between the smaller folk. I often get exasperated trying to explain how they're different to some local people who can't. So yeah,...
No problemo. Funny fact, we ban Gnomes in all our games because of how a single player insists on playing them...
All CN, all the time, always illusionists. Ugh. :D
When I was still playing 4th Edition I had a LG Gnome Brawler Fighter with his highest stats in Str, Con, and Dex; his name was Fray Tejon. I played him like a Mexican wrestler. Did I mention he was also a priest of Segojan Earthcaller, Gnomish deity of the dead, earth, and nature? He was also an orphan who took up prize fighting and later adventuring in order to make money to keep the orphanage that took care of him operational. By 3rd level I could choke-slam creatures several times the character's size (assuming I hit with my powers).
Also, my favourite character from Baldur's Gate II (besides Minsc, cause everybody likes Minsc) was Jan Jansen the gnome. Dude was hilarious.
Uh ... no. How about you not interpret other peoples' analysis as them accusing each other of 'playing wrong'?
Atarlost .. is pretty much spot-on. ... Matthew Downie ... too, is correct.
Except that is not what went down. Atarlost clearly came in with an attitude that his way was the right way and anyone going with the default settings assumptions (with tons of races filling the same niche of advanced tool users within the same or similar biomes) was wrong and should stop playing that way even though he never outright used the phrase "your doing it wrong." If that wasn't what 'lost wanted to imply than he did a bad job at articulating his points and should be called out on it, if only so that he can learn to better articulate his point of view without coming off as hostile.
True both playstyles can exist (never said they couldn't, though obviously not in the same game in this particular case), but one shouldn't try to convince others that their particular style is in any way "less correct" than any other. At the end of the day it comes down to subjective preference and one has to learn to let others have their fun instead of being that guy.
I kind of hate to say this, but if you're the only one reading someone as saying 'you are bad!!', then maybe you need to go back and re-read what is being said, and whether or not you are adding negative voice to what's being said. Atarlost came in with no attitude whatsoever; you brought that in. Contrast what he said with someone who DID come in with an 'other people are doing it wrong!!' statement:
Edit: Oh, and Alexd1976, thank you for being one of those who actually can grok the differences between the smaller folk. I often get exasperated trying to explain how they're different to some local people who can't. So yeah,...
See the difference? The mote in thine own eye, and all that,
I'll step in to defend the "deep roleplaying requires worldbuilding" argument...
No problemo. Funny fact, we ban Gnomes in all our games because of how a single player insists on playing them...
All CN, all the time, always illusionists. Ugh. :D
Both reasons are why the gnomes in my homebrew are both a) related to halflings (5-10,000 years back) and b) generally lawful - they are, in fact, the ones who created the warrior-monk class for the same reasons as Brazilian slaves came up with capoeira - needing to develop combat skill while still under the thumb of the slave-masters. This doesn't mean they don't love fun and tricks and illusions; they just aren't 'stranded fey'.
Most things work. It can be tough making them work in a new world, but usually if you can come up with a different reason ... :)
Unless there is a very good reason to limit the players , then every class/race goes for me (ofc this doesnt count 3pp, race builder...)
After the players get whatever they want , then i might decide if the other races will appear or not , when , how...
When i play i like to have pretty much all the options open to me and thus i do the same for those im GMing for.
Though I've never really went to such lengths before, my next setting seriously overhauls many of the things I consider unfortunate relics that should have been revised. One of the main things is the races, the players can basically throw out all of the chapter on races, and the monster manuals, because they won't be of any use anymore. I've pretty much rewritten it.
Did I rewrite hundreds of races? Nope, because that's something I've never really liked about the typical D&D ecology: DMs just rolling random encounters according to the current level of PCs, thus transforming the world's ecology into a PC-centric "whatever will challenge the heroes". For a few levels, they might fight a bunch of X, and then never see them again for the rest of the game, even if they keep to the same locale. The background of any such creature is without importance, because they often never meet any again. Instead, I just restricted races, and not just playable races, to a very limited few.
I'm a pretty big fan of gritty and low-fantasy, though, so the setting follows (it's E6, the main material plane has the wild magic trait, magic is very rare, etc.).
Namely, what I've done, is start off with two main racial groups. One is the primals (because they originate from this facet of the plane; the more monstrous races), and the other is the fallen (because the founding spirits came from the opposite facet of the plane, and fell from the sky; the more standard races). The primals are the orcs and the gnolls. The fallen are the humans, the elves, the dwarves, and the gnomes. Additionally, there are the goblinoids (which are 1 race, goblins being the children, hobgoblins the mature males, and bugbears the mature females), who are essentially hybrids of both groups.
As I rewrote them, I wanted for all of these races to be, ultimately, playable. I've always hated how terribly broken the low-lvl monstrous races were. +4 to str for orcs? +4 to dex for goblins? Way too abusable. They easily could have been given good scores in these abilities in the default NPC entries without getting +4 racial bonuses and the other stuff they get. I also hated how some race/class comboes were just a given because of how the stat bonuses lent themselves to that given class. So to make race selection not simply limit itself to "which gives the best boost to my class?", I pretty much equalized them all. Every race gets a bonus feat at lvl 1, which I tried to keep more or less equivalent. Every race gets flexible ability score bonuses: instead of a +2 to con, +2 to wis and -2 to cha, for example, I switched it to a +2 to physical, +2 to mental, and -2 to mental. Free to the player to distribute these as he pleases (barring a few restrictions, such as while it's fine to have a +2 and a -2 cancel each other out, it's not to stack two +2s to make a +4). So pretty near every class/race combo can make something at least decent. Furthermore, they get to chose a nation, which grants its own bonuses, which are themselves pretty equivalent. And while each nation is predominantly of a single race, exceptions are possible and thus it's possible that a gnome was raised in the human Ablian Empire or one of the two elven kingdoms. Thus allowing some flexibility in character creation, without having to deal with 100s of races. Just 7 races, spread in 12 nations (humans get 3, elves, dwarves, and orcs get 2, the others get 1, though the gnolls are really a bunch of autonomous tribes). With 12 nations, I can easily write background stories for each, and thus give a pretty robust framework for the whole continent. And when the planned campaign is over, I can easily re-use that setting, mix up a few parameters, and then have the players act as agents in a different part of the world during the same grand events, or a little in the past that lead to the events of the first campaign, or way in the past that lead to the creation of these nations, and so on. A setting I plan to re-use, and which will be able to grow by the PCs living in them.
I'm definately on the team of "less is better", without wanting to be over-imposing and having everyone play humans. After all, the only reason I ever play humans myself is for the bonus feat, and I tend to make goblinoids whenever my GMs allow it (currently having fun with a hobgoblin cleric of Abadar).
Oooo, I was -wondering- what to do with bugbears.
I have kobolds (re-skinned as a goblinoid) as the 'first iteration', and depending on if they're strong or smart, they go orc (strong) or goblin (smart) for the 'second iteration'. Orcs become 'black orcs' (or maybe bugbears, I dunno - need to look at the stats again), while goblins become hobgoblins for the 'third iteration'.
After that, well, black orcs / bugbears would become ogres, and thence to trolls - Warhammer-style, not skinny hyperflammable ones, albeit still with regeneration. Hobgoblins become 'high hobs', a sort of refined, even faster and smarter version of hobgoblins, and after that ... I hadn't thought of anything.
I do like the hobgoblin / bugbear thing as being male / female, though. Eeeenteresting. I may have to eyeball info again, maybe play around with that idea. And my last character was Ludo, a hobgoblin monk. :D
For me, the stats are of no importance, because I rewrite them anyways. Default D&D and PF bugbears don't make for proper PC races, but with the racial traits I give them, it's no worse than elves or gnomes. Lumping them all into a single race offered me a means to bring together what are otherwise very distinct races usually only lumped together by a meaningless subtype. Humanoid (goblinoid)... I rarely see any writing that dwelves to a satisfactory level into the links between these races.
Many species are sexually dimorphic, with the females being considerably larger and stronger than the males. We just don't seem to have that in typical D&D. A few monstrous exceptions might exist, but they are rare and, afaik, not playable PC races. I liked the idea of applying this to a humanoid species. And given the temperament generally attributed to goblins, and their height, seemed legitimate to outright make them children. Plus I read an article recently about how some people are born female and grow into males at puberty... perfect for my goblinoids!
I've always viewed the goblinoids as filling a niche role between the hero races and the monstrous ones. Especially the hobgoblins. The distinction between a human tyranny and a hobgoblin one is small, they don't have any special powers, only an inclination to things militaristic empires can do regardless of race. Their art also usually places them as looking something between humans and more staple monstrous races, like orcs, or even gnolls. Basically, I started building moulds for the major groups of my world, and then used them to be the major misfits. Gender equality? Quite another subject with sexual diphormish. Racism (Speciesism, really...)? Do they really constitute their own or are they "just mutts"? What are the implications in a world where the other species originate from founding spirits, which themselves have conflicting origins? Innate evilness? Is it innate? From which faction did they take it? The primals, and their brutal tendencies and slaving practices? The fallen, like the elves who nearly wiped off the gnolls as a species just to get more hunting grounds, or the humans who double-crossed the dwarves by delaying the arrival of their armies and thus letting a grand orcish army overtake their capital, so that they may take it themselves?
This hybrid status is essentially a tool for me that allows to further develop other races, and to further establish the great moral greyness of my setting (the world that "Good" forgot, as I joke with another DM friend). Once you step out of the caricatural, I think many opportunities arise, and with it, further depth. Having a ton of playable PC races rarely offer more than additional stereotypes, and once you start hacking away at the race/stereotype combo, greater freedom arises. It's certainly my most ambitious campaign setting thus far.
Personally I think the more races the better. Anyone who has seen my posts are probably aware of that.
All the people I know who don't like having a ton of race options tend to hold the opinion that rarer races are crutches for people who can't make a character interesting without a weird race. These same people tend to be fine with stereotypical dwarves, elves, and human adventurer tropes for whatever class people pick who have put limited effort into their characters.
If you made your own setting that only uses the core races without adding one or two other playable races (even ones that are more commonly playable like goblins) I think you are completely unoriginal. Elves and Dwarves have been done to death.
The two most interesting worlds I've played in have had mostly non standard races.
One had : Humans, Elves(more like the nuts discworld elves than standard thankfully), Dhampir, Catfolk, Vishkanyas, Hobgoblins, and Gripplis
The other had: Humans, Syrinx, Monkey Goblin, Ghorans(He really liked ISB races I guess), Nagaji, Ifrit, Ratfolk, and nerfed Kasathas and Trox
They had spent a lot of time really developing their world and really encouraged people to use the non humans. Two of the most well made fantasy settings i've experienced. Unfortunately several other people I know tend to do the same old pseudo-europe Elf dwarf human stuff when they try to make a setting.
Why can't people just be creative with their setting and story telling?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are optimizer wizards, and there are diehard roleplayers, and oftentimes there is no middle ground. If you can do both, I have respect for you.
You can't be serious.... I'm amazed some people STILL believe that the Stormwind Fallacy is true.
The most optimal build choices are frequently unjustifiable via roleplaying.
Bull.
The smart fighter,
Warder, Lore Warden, Slayer, Investigator.
the fighter who wields his father's greatsword
Barbarian, Bloodrager, Battlehost Occultist, Warlord, Warder, Slayer
Or the gentle healer
That's the issue of being a gentle Anything in a game that revolves around combat.
elven druid.
That's still overpowered.
Extreme power often requires jumping through weird feat hoops or working out the strangest spell combinations using long-dead blood magic and turning into a dragon.
Actually.... no. The most powerful are accomplished by casting a single spell intelligently, like Using Gate/Planar Ally/Binding to get another creature to cast any other spell you want, or using Simulacrum to get an infinite amount of super powerful minions with any ability you want.
The most optimal build choices are frequently unjustifiable via roleplaying. Lots of cool and unique roleplay ideas are not optimal. Lots of fairly generic roleplay ideas are far from optimal. The smart fighter, for instance, or the fighter who wields his father's greatsword, or the gentle healer, or an elven druid. Extreme power often requires jumping through weird feat hoops or working out the strangest spell combinations using long-dead blood magic and turning into a dragon. For good roleplayers, strange things are not a serious problem, for average to meh roleplayers, these sorts of strange and arcane choices will be extremely difficult to reconcile. It's not that you can't be optimal and roleplay well, it's just that the more hoops you jump through to optimize, the more strange and disconnected things you may have to roleplay, and the more build choices you make for roleplaying's sake, the less likely you are to be fully optimal. Pathfinder is a game with those sort of flavor vs power tradeoffs. It's not that you can't play a powerful character and roleplay well, it's just that Pathfinder doesn't cater as well as they could to that crowd.There are optimizer wizards, and there are diehard roleplayers, and oftentimes there is no middle ground. If you can do both, I have respect for you.You can't be serious.... I'm amazed some people STILL believe that the Stormwind Fallacy is true.
I found that this varies based on class to a certain point , but i trully agree the issue is there atleast during low lvls, it is quite hard to balance the choices.
I wish there were extra "perks" that gave you the cool feats... instead of you being forced on passing on them until you are high level enough the build is mostly complete anyway.
@Milo , being OP has nothing to do with being optimal , a player that want the optimal choice doesnt give a damm if the other option is still good , all that matters is which one is the best.
You probably dont see elven druids often , i atleast almost never do outside NPCs.
I don't even see many Druids to begin with.
On the original topic of RACES rather than classes, the more the better IMO, as long as they're good.
I like the core races well enough (except Elves and gnomes. Never been a big fan of either.), but I like teh more flexible races introduced later. Aasimar, Tiefling, Dhampir, Skinwalker...the sort of races with like 8 different variations so that whole RP/Mechanics clash never come sup in teh first place.
All races should be like that I think, just being able to say pick a physical stat and then a mental stat and add +2 to both, and a bunch of really cool racial abilities on top of that.
That way you don't have the issue of wanting to play, say, a Dwarf Oracle and being horribly gimped. Helps the races not be so pigeon-holed flavor-wise as well.
Why is the paradigm of "All dwarves are gruff and unfriendly" and "All Elves are aloof and frail" so important to keep intact? It takes away from flavor more than it adds IMO. The most intelligent Gnome on the planet is still less intelligent than his Elf peer because Elves are just that awesome I guess.
Humans are still ahead of the curve with their bonus feat.
|
All the people I know who don't like having a ton of race options tend to hold the opinion that rarer races are crutches for people who can't make a character interesting without a weird race.
Agreed. I certainly do to some extent, though I try to keep an open mind when dealing with the player accross the table from me. I certainly don't make comments about "All the People".
But, when I ask player what is special about thier character, I'll usually get something along the lines of "I'm a Catfolk dancer" from the many race crowd when I talk to them.
Meanwhile, I'll get something like "these scars on my back came from the Nuns" or "My Eidolon was my most consistant friend growing up. All the really human girls would outgrow me after a time." What follows in the case of the cat girl is a stereotype while the latter examples give me mire fully realised people.
These same people tend to be fine with stereotypical dwarves, elves, and human adventurer tropes for whatever class people pick who have put limited effort into their characters.
Again, I see some of that. The people I enjoy most as a Roleplayer tend to not need a special snowflake race to distinguish them. On the other hand, they can come up with an interesting take on established tropes.
If you made your own setting that only uses the core races without adding one or two other playable races (even ones that are more commonly playable like goblins) I think you are completely unoriginal.
Big frickin deal. Interesting worlds come down to what you do with it. George rr Martin wrote the most compelling fantasy world I know with only humans. Golarion is interesting, not because of the weird races bit in part because we have cool witches and devil worshipping empires. Not because of the varied races.
The two most interesting worlds I've played in have had mostly non standard races.
I could go through my examples but I think it's more effective to point to some SF series.
B5 was interesting because it did include a lot of races and did it well. But that is the exception. On the other hand in Star Trek/Star Wars the focus is on the mostly human pcs and the Cantina is mostly window dressing.
On the other hand, Battlestar Galactica and Firefly are probably the most compelling universes. And it's no surprise those universes the most humancentric.
Why can't people just be creative with their setting and story telling?
And I'd say there lot of ways to be creative. Same with setting. But a ton of races is just as likely dilute from the coolness than to add to it.
snipped
Ah sorry if I seem misleading I'm not talking about settings in general. Especially since I agree with you that most of those settings are great ( I never really liked Star Trek) but I was really trying to get at that in RPGs people have a tendency to fall back on the base races and the typical stereotypes associated with them and the best settings ive played in were using nonbase races and had spent a lot of time developing cultures and people and places. I'm NOT saying you have to have 38 races to have an interesting setting. What I'm saying is that people tend to use the same races in the same ways over and over again and they aren't slightly creative.
I would much rather be in a setting that is a high fantasy Australia-ish setting with MAd Max-esque Ifrit raiders and Nagaji slaver-monks than Mining, drinking dwarves and tree huggy, philosophy Elves in Not-Europe. You do NOT need weird races but when I see homebrewed RPG settings most fall back on base race stereotypes and don't get creative.
Also I hate people who make "unique" characters by saying I'm a *insert race* *insert class* but i see that with base races too. Do i play mostly non base races? Yes. But I always come up with a background that would be interesting if you swapped the race with human. Those who use weird race as a crutch are going to be uncreative regardless in my opinion
You do have a nice taste in fiction my friend.
Editing the base races is a fun exercise. For example, the elves of my world are neither overly wise nor long-lived. Nor do they live in particular harmony with nature. My orcs run a pretty organized slave trading operation with other humanoids and some of their tribes have the best sailors of the land. I have felt some player attachment to common stereotypes though and as such I try to be careful not to completely destroy every reference to them. I've also given the nations real-world national themes to help players with their roleplay. How does a human from the Albian Empire dress like? Think Britain. How to name my goblinoid character ? Think Russian. And so on. Crutches are not alll bad in themselves but its nice to step out of them overdone ones.
While the dwarves in my homebrew are miner-sorts, the elves are trying to gain the arcane mastery their ancient shapeshifter overlords possessed, and they're very, very wary - the snooty 'high culture' doesn't exist, especially since their original homeland was shattered into an archipelago during the magic war. (That war is why humans became such a dominant species across the oceans - all of the 'created' races are centered on the core RP continent.) But yeah, playing with a base race and the players' expectations is fun ...
I think that we need to remember that "Do you prefer traditional fantasy?" and "Can weird races be overplayed?" are ultimately very different questions from "How many races in a game is too many?" It is certainly possible for a game to limit race choice and still not be traditional fantasy.
For example, one of my favorite games I ran was in a hobgoblin city called Aries Kraul. Befitting the themes, the Sparta-esque city-state was split into several major subcultures and races. Hobgoblins, and by extension goblins and bugbears, were the maintain of the city and its armies, and the de facto leaders. A merchant's guild of tieflings controlled the city's economy, while plundering the ruins below the city for ancient infernal artifacts and lore. Shifters (skindancers in Pathfinder) were slaves and low-class citizens who used to roam the land before the hobgoblins took over; they were also the primary crime element, lead by bloodthirsty lycanthropic rebels. And strangely, a number of gnomes and elves also dwelled in the city, refugees from a corrupted Feywild portal in a forest to the northeast--they were not exactly welcome, but their illusory magics made it hard to weed them out. The resulting population was obviously not traditional fantasy, but still focused enough that each race had a narrative place. And while I chose to allow for more open options for "out-of-towners," most of my players picked races and options that fit inside the narrative--a hobgoblin templar, a tiefling merchant prince, an evangelical shifter--and so were immediately involved in the goings-on of this crapsack nation.
I'd say that, in terms of the toolbox that groups can draw upon, more options is ultimately better, as long as they are designed to avoid the kind of narrative redundancies and minute differences in mechanics that make the Paradox of Choice so miserable. However, from campaign to campaign, the group should be expected to decide how to restrict themselves according to the needs and flavor of that specific game. Some groups allow the DM to decide these limitations, and others do so as a cooperative narrative. Some campaigns are designed to allow for everything, but that is part of the campaign flavor, not a fundamental advantage or flaw for a particular game.
I understand the fatigue and concerns that come with the deluge of material that gets published every year, but I feel the advantages outweigh the problems they present. It is true that every new option means less development for existing races or classes--that's basic resource scarcity. But at the same time, a single race or class can eventually receive enough development for most players to be satisfied, and with the current rate of new races from Paizo every year, I feel they can safely develop newer options over time as the older races become plump with content (although whether they will is entirely up to Paizo).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quality and Quantity are NOT mutually exclusive.
Personally, I think the more the merrier. I despise the standard
Tolkien-esque races and always play humans cause I've grown to hate Elves, Dwarves and Halflings. My group's current campaign is Core and APG only, which really isn't my cup of tea because I despise all the character classes in the core rulebook as well.
I like more out of the box races and classes, and hate anything standard or traditional, but that's only my personal preference, I don't claim to speak for anyone else.
|
I prefer letting the players choose whatever (within reason, no Drow Nobles, unless *everybody* is playing a 'powerful race!') race they want, and then adjust the iteration of the setting I'm using to make the race(s) they chose the dominant ones, and shove the others to the side.
Even in 1st edition AD&D, I was a bit put off by how many humanoid races there were. It wasn't enough to have orcs and goblins and kobolds, there were urds and tasloi and ogrillons, and the more there were, the more it kind of bugged me, so I sort of skipped most of them and just had some kobolds have wings, or some goblins live in the jungle canopy or some orcs take up boxing. I've generally stuck to that in 3.X and PF, avoiding too many races by just ignoring most of the humanoid races that the PCs aren't actively using. Nobody is playing a catfolk, changeling, oread, ratfolk, skinwalker or tiefling? Maybe there aren't any, *in the world.* If somebody wants to play one later, I can easily enough say that they just hadn't run into one yet. It's a big world!
Still, thanks to that bonus feat (and flexible stat bonus in PF), human remains pretty much the go to race for everything. My players (and myself, guilty as charged!) will often toss the cool flavor and role-playing possibilities of an uncommon race aside like a dead skunk in favor of the mechanical benefits of playing a human.
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 certainly understand this perspective but I love the party of freaks dynamic and would really enjoy rp-ing that. One of the major reasons I'm a huge fan of Guardians of the Galaxy (comics and movie) is because of the "group of down and out misfit freaks" theme of the story.
Quality and Quantity are NOT mutually exclusive.
Neither are "cheap and good"
But most of the time you can't have both|
|
I can certainly understand this perspective but I love the party of freaks dynamic and would really enjoy rp-ing that. One of the major reasons I'm a huge fan of Guardians of the Galaxy (comics and movie) is because of the "group of down and out misfit freaks" theme of the story.
Spelljammer was fun for crazy race parties. We had one with a Minotaur from Krynn, a Xixchil (bug-people who liked to body modify themselves surgically), an Ogre, a Wemic, a Giff (firearms/explosives-obsessed hippo people), etc. My character was a Tinker Gnome Giant Space Werehamster with the Clockwork Mage 'kit' who rode a collapsible exercise bike contraption to generate a charge for his shocking grasp spell.
But a party of misfits, such as a tiefling, elf and Halfling party trying to get through Council of Thieves (set in Westcrown, where all three races are some combination of oppressed), can be fun too, for an added challenge.
I can certainly understand this perspective but I love the party of freaks dynamic and would really enjoy rp-ing that. One of the major reasons I'm a huge fan of Guardians of the Galaxy (comics and movie) is because of the "group of down and out misfit freaks" theme of the story.Spelljammer was fun for crazy race parties. We had one with a Minotaur from Krynn, a Xixchil (bug-people who liked to body modify themselves surgically), an Ogre, a Wemic, a Giff (firearms/explosives-obsessed hippo people), etc. My character was a Tinker Gnome Giant Space Werehamster with the Clockwork Mage 'kit' who rode a collapsible exercise bike contraption to generate a charge for his shocking grasp spell.
But a party of misfits, such as a tiefling, elf and Halfling party trying to get through Council of Thieves (set in Westcrown, where all three races are some combination of oppressed), can be fun too, for an added challenge.
Fantasy Craft is another great game for playing crazy races. My group actually tried to do a "freaks" campaign, and we had a Drake (very young dragon), a giant, a lizard man, and a unicorn riding elf. The premise was that magic was dying in the world, and we were some of the last non-humans left in the world. Didn't last long unfortunately.
|
It all depends upon what sort of game you want to run.
If you want to run a classic story of discovery - where your characters are taken aback by the horror and strangeness of it all - you should stick to human or near human races. After all - vampires aren't all that horrifying and strange when you have a dhampir in the party.
On the other hand - sometimes it's fun to play a Mos Eisley style game - where strangeness is merely the norm in your world. After all - while the watcher was intrigued by the oddness of the aliens in the cantina, to Luke what was odd weren't the aliens, but only that they were shady aliens.
I will say - from a mechanics perspective - sometimes having too many races can actually limit your options if you like to optimize AT ALL. For example - in Pathfinder if you want a wizard and aren't a moron, you're going to play an elf, or one of the three jack-of-all races. (human/half-orc/half-elf) Same with sorcerer except besides the three jacks you're going to be a halfling or a gnome. etc (excluding the secondary races in both cases)
There are optimizer wizards, and there are diehard roleplayers, and oftentimes there is no middle ground. If you can do both, I have respect for you.Aren't these mostly the same thing? They are to me.From a gaming perspective (PF as a better alternative to video games)...
From a narrative perspective (PF as an interactive novel)...
They are the same in that they are two parts and ways of looking at the same thing, but are ultimately two different parts: the crunch and the fluff.
You can't have one without the other but some want more of one and less of the other. And that's just fine. Race options are one area people emphasizing one over the other may come to disagreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weirdly, most "roleplayer not rollplayer" players I've meet have sucked at roleplaying.