Desired Racial Diversity in a Setting

[VoxRationis]

Taking a quick poll here:
How important is it, in your opinion, that the breadth of sentient creatures in the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook be represented in a setting that you were to play in? If a campaign setting said something to the tune of "this is a single Europe-sized continent and fitting all these different species, each with their own subdivisions and their own substantial population bases, into it is improbable," what would be your reaction? Would you say:

"I have no problem with this creative choice on the part of the setting's developer, and would gladly play whatever races are in the setting;"
"Monsters are the DM's purview, and if there aren't all of them in the setting, that's okay, but I want access to all the races from the Player's Handbook;"
"It's okay if I can't play drow or dragonborn or something like that—the Player's Handbook specifically says they're not in every setting—but I have to be able to play a dwarf, elf, or halfling;"
"How dare someone restrict that! I would not play in such a setting, and object to the concept on principle;"
"It's not to my taste, but it's not intrinsically wrong as a setting for other people to play in."
"It's fine for NPCs, but I should be given exceptions to the established nature of the campaign setting, since I'm a player."
[Other]

Edited to add new option in line with previous responses

[DanyBallon]

6. Available races are the purview of the DM in relation with his setting. In publish setting common races for that setting are available, restricted races are allowed on a case by case basis by the DM after discussion with the player.

[Inevitability]

6. I don't need the diversity fluff-wise, but I do like it mechanically. I am fine with the DM saying goliaths don't exist in his world, as long as I can play a strong, tough human who is mechanically just a goliath.

[hymer]

I guess my answer is something like 1.25. I'd just be a tad annoyed if I was forced to choose between playing a gnome and a dragonborn, e.g.

[MrConsideration]

1 as player or DM, although I'm normally open to discussion with that one player who really wants to be a Gnome.

Including everything in every setting-book quickly makes most worlds into an absurd kitchen-sink mess.

[JackPhoenix]

1, I'll go with whatever is in the setting I'm about to play in (and I would be glad to play for once, I'm an eternal GM). Not everything fits everywhere, and I prefer less inteligent creatures (not just playable races, but other beings overall) in my setting. Though I don't really have a problem with kitchen sink approach either, and my favorite published setting is Eberron. I woudln't have a problem with refluffing a race to a different one for mechanical reasons, if it's not too weird

[DireSickFish]

1. If we are going with what you outlined above. When you're homebrewing or coming up with a campaign it might just be some species don't fit into the world you are trying to create. Or a niche that would normally be filled by a race doesn't exist. Or you want a certain race to be killed on sight (gnomes are a frequent offender) and don't want the players to be that socially limited.

If we're taking an existing setting say Ebberon and the GM doesn't like Warforged and is banning them and says that constructs that can think are silly then I'd go with 4/5. It would acticly detract from my fun if the GM was banning things from an established world. Odds are I'd be able to suck it up and still play. Weather I made a stinka bout it would depend on the GM. I don't know a lot about the L5r setting for example and wanted to play a Ratman but was told in no uncertain terms that I couldn't. Not that they didn't exist, but since they couldn't get tainted and -can't- participate int he social stuff that's so intrinsic to the setting I couldn't play one. Even if he was trying really hard to be samurai like in honor and found the humans fascinating it just wouldn't work apparently. Very frustrating.


It's the GM's world and we all just live in it in the end.

[BladeWing81]

2."Monsters are the DM's purview, and if there aren't all of them in the setting, that's okay, but I want access to all the races from the Player's Handbook;"

it's your game after all, they did put restrictions on arakokrans on PotA but that makes sense it would become too easy to acomplish some things. but in general I'm ok with just the PHB to be the base.

[Ralanr]

I'm gonna go with 2. I don't like having heavy racial restrictions as a player, plus I can't imagine someone using all the monsters in the DMG for one campaign (well setting, but you get the idea).

I like dragonborn. I'll play something else if they aren't an option, but I prefer them being an option.

[JoeJ]

1. "I have no problem with this creative choice on the part of the setting's developer, and would gladly play whatever races are in the setting;"

If the DM is aiming for a specific feel to their setting, having too many intelligent species exist, or having the wrong ones, can ruin the effect. A game world heavily influenced by King Arthur or Robin Hood might easily have human be the only allowed PC race. A spelljammer campaign centering on the crew of one ship in the elvish armada might require all the PCs to be elves or half-elves.

Races could also be restricted if there's some important secret about them that will become important during the campaign. For example, if in this world elves that turn to evil become drow, and if that fact is not known to the other races, then it would make perfect sense to ban elves as a player character race.

[Pyon]

I love having several choices. The usual races bore the hell out of me so I always try to negotiate to play more interesting races, even if just fluff wise. So I prefer it, but I won't leave a campaign because I can't play a cactus =/

[Coidzor]

Taking a quick poll here:
How important is it, in your opinion, that the breadth of sentient creatures in the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook be represented in a setting that you were to play in? If a campaign setting said something to the tune of "this is a single Europe-sized continent and fitting all these different species, each with their own subdivisions and their own substantial population bases, into it is improbable," what would be your reaction?

"So what's the appeal of this setting, again, Mr. DM-Man? The designers seem to admit they suffer from a critical lack of imagination and creativity while also being overly devoted to recreating Europe In D&D(TM) that they forgot that Europe was *never* in a vacuum from the rest of the world, even during the worst of the bad old days."

So, 7. Okay, what *does* it give me, then? It should ideally equal or exceed what I'm giving up, after all.

[pwykersotz]

1. I'm willing to work with the setting without reservation.

[VoxRationis]

"So what's the appeal of this setting, again, Mr. DM-Man? The designers seem to admit they suffer from a critical lack of imagination and creativity while also being overly devoted to recreating Europe In D&D(TM) that they forgot that Europe was *never* in a vacuum from the rest of the world, even during the worst of the bad old days."

The appeal of this setting, Mr. Desperately-Needs-To-Find-Misconceptions-Man, is that it is a setting which makes sense under its own consistent logic and doesn't shoehorn about 50 competing species in where there aren't enough niches for more than a dozen. And I said nothing about anything other than the size of the setting, and certainly did not forget the Silk Road, the Muslim invasions, or the veritable conveyor belt of nomadic tribes streaming westward from the Eurasian steppes.

[coredump]

The *Creator* of the setting should be free to create it however he wants. If I feel the need to include or exclude something after that, that is my choice.

Some settings work with 100 different sentient races, some do not. I sure don't want to restrict the creators in any such way.

[Thrudd]

1. Everything about a setting is the DM's purview, playable races and the mechanics associated with them included. You play in the setting the DM is presenting including any and all restrictions or changes to the core.

[Nifft]

I want a setting where:

A - If race is a decision, the decision matters. It's not just +2 to some stat.

B - If there are lots of races, they have a plausible reason for being on the same planet. If the setting has activist gods, and a race was just created last week because that's what the god of randomly creating new races does this time of year, that's fine. If the setting is Sigil and everyone got in through a portal from somewhere else, that's fine. But don't tell me elves, dwarves, humans and halflings all evolved together.

C - Races are not cultures. Cultures are cultures, and just like there are lots of different cultures of humanity on Earth, I want some variety in cultures of other races. Eberron does a good job with this. A halfling from Sharn is not going to be much like a halfling from Talenta, even though they share the same racial bonuses.

D - Some "races" were created. I love Warforged and Tieflings for this reason: neither is 'natural', both were created on purpose (albeit through very different means). This also solves some of issue (B) since the created races have a solid origin story.

[VoxRationis]

I want a setting where:

A - If race is a decision, the decision matters. It's not just +2 to some stat.

B - If there are lots of races, they have a plausible reason for being on the same planet. If the setting has activist gods, and a race was just created last week because that's what the god of randomly creating new races does this time of year, that's fine. If the setting is Sigil and everyone got in through a portal from somewhere else, that's fine. But don't tell me elves, dwarves, humans and halflings all evolved together.

C - Races are not cultures. Cultures are cultures, and just like there are lots of different cultures of humanity on Earth, I want some variety in cultures of other races. Eberron does a good job with this. A halfling from Sharn is not going to be much like a halfling from Talenta, even though they share the same racial bonuses.

D - Some "races" were created. I love Warforged and Tieflings for this reason: neither is 'natural', both were created on purpose (albeit through very different means). This also solves some of issue (B) since the created races have a solid origin story.

I'm completely with you on ABC, though in my opinion it is not implausible that the "core four" are descended from a common ancestor; if environmental pressures were great enough that mere behavioral adaptability was no longer sufficient (such as in very early tech stages), I could see it happening.

[Nifft]

I'm completely with you on ABC, though in my opinion it is not implausible that the "core four" are descended from a common ancestor; if environmental pressures were great enough that mere behavioral adaptability was no longer sufficient (such as in very early tech stages), I could see it happening.

Yeah, it could be done, especially once magic is involved.

But it's usually not done -- usually you see a uniform ancient elf civilization which is basically Rivendell with the serial number filed off -- and that's no longer impressive to me.

I once did a Man-Against-Nature setting where Elves were "redeemed" fey, not always liked but legally accepted by the Human majority. Dwarves and Halflings were either cursed or mutated by life underground, and also legally accepted as still Human in spite of their obvious defects -- mostly due to their obvious utility as miners.

[DM12]

"I have no problem with this creative choice on the part of the setting's developer, and would gladly play whatever races are in the setting;"

"It's fine for NPCs, but I should be given exceptions to the established nature of the campaign setting, since I'm a player."


As a DM my reaction would most likely fall under number one, but as a player i think it's important not to stifle creativity. If your players can come to a reasonable explanation as to why their exotic character is a part of this setting I'd recommend allowing it, in fact i'd would try and help them build an appropriate backstory. What if they're from a different continent? or they could have been trapped in a deep slumber for millennium and only just awoke.

[Freelance GM]

Taking a quick poll here:

"I have no problem with this creative choice on the part of the setting's developer, and would gladly play whatever races are in the setting;"
"Monsters are the DM's purview, and if there aren't all of them in the setting, that's okay, but I want access to all the races from the Player's Handbook;"
"It's okay if I can't play drow or dragonborn or something like that—the Player's Handbook specifically says they're not in every setting—but I have to be able to play a dwarf, elf, or halfling;"
"How dare someone restrict that! I would not play in such a setting, and object to the concept on principle;"
"It's not to my taste, but it's not intrinsically wrong as a setting for other people to play in."
"It's fine for NPCs, but I should be given exceptions to the established nature of the campaign setting, since I'm a player."
[Other]

Edited to add new option in line with previous responses

I tell my players 6, with the caveat of "but you should still try to make my character as relevant to the setting as possible." You're totally allowed to play a Dragonborn in my games, but they're exceptionally rare in my setting, so don't expect to see any others of your race. I encourage players to choose more "relevant" races, unless they're really fixed on playing an obscure one. It's easier for me to work them into the story, and it's usually more fun for them.

[Coidzor]

The appeal of this setting, Mr. Desperately-Needs-To-Find-Misconceptions-Man, is that it is a setting which makes sense under its own consistent logic and doesn't shoehorn about 50 competing species in where there aren't enough niches for more than a dozen. And I said nothing about anything other than the size of the setting, and certainly did not forget the Silk Road, the Muslim invasions, or the veritable conveyor belt of nomadic tribes streaming westward from the Eurasian steppes.

You should still be aware of what your words convey if you want to live up to your lofty username. Your words if presented to me by a DM while trying to promote playing in a setting would say "This is ersatz Europe which has been whitewashed by some culturally ignorant yahoo to be devoid of anything but the influence of white people," so the tagline still needs some workshopping.

Besides, it wouldn't do to be overly forgiving when giving my reaction to a proposed setting.

You certainly don't need to have 50 humanoid species floating around, but if someone can't find a way to fit the big names into their setting when it's got varied biomes and is the size of Europe, which isn't exactly small despite being the second smallest continent, well, that speaks to a failure on their part. The core races should be self-evident as to how to fit them in, for instance, and the main antagonists of each naturally slot in to place.

[Hawkstar]

B - If there are lots of races, they have a plausible reason for being on the same planet. If the setting has activist gods, and a race was just created last week because that's what the god of randomly creating new races does this time of year, that's fine. If the setting is Sigil and everyone got in through a portal from somewhere else, that's fine. But don't tell me elves, dwarves, humans and halflings all evolved together.And gophers, groundhogs, moles, meercats, prairie dogs, beavers, otters, badgers, minks, and racoons ALSO didn't all evolve on the same planet! Nor did deer, antelope, impalas, springboks, moose, pronghorns, cattle, horses, and zebras. Should I continue?

[Cybren]

"So what's the appeal of this setting, again, Mr. DM-Man? The designers seem to admit they suffer from a critical lack of imagination and creativity while also being overly devoted to recreating Europe In D&D(TM) that they forgot that Europe was *never* in a vacuum from the rest of the world, even during the worst of the bad old days."

So, 7. Okay, what *does* it give me, then? It should ideally equal or exceed what I'm giving up, after all.
Did I miss the lesson where orcs invaded across the Tarim basin?

Did dwarves secretly live in the alps?

[JoeJ]

So, 7. Okay, what *does* it give me, then? It should ideally equal or exceed what I'm giving up, after all.

And you're giving up what now? Reading? Watching TV? Surfing the internet? What it gives you is the chance to play D&D.

[Knaight]

I generally favor having humans around. Everything else on the list is pretty much entirely optional, and even something like an all dwarf game is fine by me, if less preferable to something which is all human. As far as I'm concerned, a number of these are Tolkien knockoffs perfectly suitable to playing in Middle Earth, and less suitable to playing in plenty of other perfectly valid settings.

[wasgreg]

1.


Back in AD&D first edition, I played in a homebrew (they all seemed to be homebrew's, I never knew there were published back then) Dwarves controlled the oceans of the world and had a naval civilization. Halflings lived in floating cities and controlled airships and magical hangliders. Half orcs were a race unto themselves and lived in the great dessert expanses. Those were the only races allowed. Had a blast.

[Nifft]

And gophers, groundhogs, moles, meercats, prairie dogs, beavers, otters, badgers, minks, and racoons ALSO didn't all evolve on the same planet! Nor did deer, antelope, impalas, springboks, moose, pronghorns, cattle, horses, and zebras. Should I continue?

Nah, what you should do is realize that a bunch of environment-locked prey-animals and herbivores are not at all similar to a species of omni-environment omnivores who are at the top of every food chain and who cause the extinction of every species with whom they competed.

Then, once you see the difference, you could try to make a comparison which is relevant... if you can find one.

[Elbeyon]

The players and their character's are always open to exceptions. Nothing could be more snowflake than being a player/PC. They all get instant special status.

[Steampunkette]

I hover between 1 and 6.

With the caveat that if someone wants to be something that doesn't exist in the setting I'll fluff them out something while letting the mechanics run, and hope they do the same for me.

Like Harpies. I want to play a harpy pretty badly, but most gms don't allow for it. I'd be happy to take another winged race and fluff it as being a harpy even if it's mechanics are winged kobold.

Meanwhile if someone wants to play a firebreathing human I'll slap dragonborn in front of them, call it human, and make up fluff about a magic item, curse, or godly gift. Whatever works.

[Sindeloke]

I want a setting where: ....

You. I like you.

My setting actually has no Tolkien races and I'll throw you off the porch Jazz-style if you ask to play one. There are seven sentient races, but none of them are bumpy forehead humans, and each of them came to the continent at a specific time for a specific reason. I spent a lot of time and creative effort making the place coherent, building the different cultures, making them psychologically distinct from each other and figuring out how they'd fit in to each of the nations they inhabit. Just... randomly sticking goliaths in the mountains or something would stick out so terribly, and basically feels like the player's saying "I don't even a little bit care about the work you've done creating this setting." If you don't respect the most fundamental foundation of the game I'm running for you, how could you respect anything else about the story I build?

I would be perfectly happy to let someone use another race's mechanics for a subrace/unique member of one of my races, though. Fluff and mechanics are totally separate issues.

[Grey Watcher]

Somewhere between 1, 5, and 6 for me:

If the setting-designer says, for example, dragonborn flat-out don't exist on this planet, I might be mildly disappointed that I have to shelve my idea for "Dragonborn ex-gladiator" until some other time, but otherwise I'm willing to go along with it.

If the setting says this is a Europe-analogue, and Dragonborn are from the Mongolia-analogue, I don't see why I can't play a lone wanderer/exile/explorer/whatever and go all "stranger in a strange land". If the GM put her foot down and said, no you MUST play one of the core races, I might start to get a little annoyed.

I'm fine with refluffing things as well (eg, if I wanted to play a flying Dragonborn, I'd be find with playing a reskinned Aaracorka. Or, as someone suggested above, playing what is a Goliath mechanically, but in-fiction is just an unusually strong human. Or maybe Dragonborn in this setting aren't a species, but just humans who have been "blessed" by dragons.

I guess it basically boils down to this: can the GM give me a good reason why certain options are off the table? If we're playing in Tolkein's Middle Earth, then of course Drow Elves, Dragonborn, and Gnomes are off the table. If we're playing in historical Earth (possibly plus magic), then I can totally see why playing a non-human (or at least anything that can't readily be refluffed as such) would be problematic. If there isn't a good reason (eg the GM just doesn't like Gnomes, so you can't play one), then that will start to rankle.

That said, in general, I prefer to have more options than fewer, even if I do ultimately decide to play a human.

[Grey Watcher]

B - ... But don't tell me elves, dwarves, humans and halflings all evolved together.

Why not? My understanding is that neanderthals and homo sapiens (both intelligent enough to have cultures and use tools) existed on this planet at the same time, at least for a while, so why not say that, at this particular time on this particular world, there exist multiple bipedal, tool-and-language using mammal species?


A - [B]If race is a decision, the decision matters. It's not just +2 to some stat.

C - Races are not cultures. Cultures are cultures, and just like there are lots of different cultures of humanity on Earth, I want some variety in cultures of other races. Eberron does a good job with this. A halfling from Sharn is not going to be much like a halfling from Talenta, even though they share the same racial bonuses.

I feel like these are a little at odds with each other. I mean, if being a halfling isn't nearly as important as being from Talenta, then doesn't that push race closer to being "essentially human, but with alternate stats".

That said, I do agree with point C, to the point where I've often wished that they'd officially separate race and culture in The Rules. For example, Elves would get +2 Dexterity and Darkvision as a racial bonus, but free proficiency with swords and bows would be a cultural bonus. So an Elf raised by, I dunno Gnomes, wouldn't be automatically proficient with longbows, but would instead have some free proficiency normally associated with Gnomes. (Conversely, a Gnome raised by Elves WOULD get the free bow proficiency instead of whatever the analogue Gnome benefit is).

(Racial languages also annoy me for this reason.)

D - Some "races" were created. I love Warforged and Tieflings for this reason: neither is 'natural', both were created on purpose (albeit through very different means). This also solves some of issue (B) since the created races have a solid origin story.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't say it's an absolute requirement, but yes, I do like it when some races have a very specific and more memorable origin.

[Sindeloke]

If the setting-designer says, for example, dragonborn flat-out don't exist on this planet, I might be mildly disappointed that I have to shelve my idea for "Dragonborn ex-gladiator" until some other time, but otherwise I'm willing to go along with it.

[...]

If there isn't a good reason (eg the GM just doesn't like Gnomes, so you can't play one), then that will start to rankle.

How are you drawing a line between these two? The reason you will never be able to play a kender in a game I run is that there are no kender in my setting, or in any of the existing settings I might be tempted to run (Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft). The reason I will never be tempted to run a setting that has kender, though, is that I loathe kender.

[hymer]

How are you drawing a line between these two? The reason you will never be able to play a kender in a game I run is that there are no kender in my setting, or in any of the existing settings I might be tempted to run (Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft). The reason I will never be tempted to run a setting that has kender, though, is that I loathe kender.

This is how I feel about gnomes. I've tried to allow them, but it's ended with half-hearted campaigns lasting perhaps a handful of sessions. I'm not saying I'm being rational in my dislike, but I think it's rational to avoid mixing up something I can't stand to drink.

[Nifft]

Why not? My understanding is that neanderthals and homo sapiens (both intelligent enough to have cultures and use tools) existed on this planet at the same time, at least for a while, so why not say that, at this particular time on this particular world, there exist multiple bipedal, tool-and-language using mammal species?

I guess if you want to run a campaign about how the Elves or Hobbits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis) get hunted to extinction and will only exist as trace DNA among the humans who interbred with them, that could be plausible, but ... genocide isn't really my thing.

So it's either kinda implausible or it's kinda distasteful.

That's why not.

EDIT:

My setting actually has no Tolkien races and I'll throw you off the porch Jazz-style if you ask to play one. There are seven sentient races, but none of them are bumpy forehead humans, and each of them came to the continent at a specific time for a specific reason. Do you have a link to your setting?


I would be perfectly happy to let someone use another race's mechanics for a subrace/unique member of one of my races, though. Fluff and mechanics are totally separate issues. I should post the three settings I've used which were plausible by my standards.

[Thrudd]

"Whatever the DM says/wants/likes" is the only reason needed for what is or isn't included in a setting.

Any number of races and civilizations can be explained by the magic of imagination, there isn't a "right" answer to what is realistic or plausible when we're talking about fantasy. One thing that distinguishes a good setting from a mediocre or poor one, however, is that it has consistent internal logic and can explain why everything exists in a plausible way. Where did everything come from, how did it get the way it is now, and what is the present status quo? That's what you need to have figured out.

[tieren]

I guess if you want to run a campaign about how the Elves or Hobbits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis) get hunted to extinction and will only exist as trace DNA among the humans who interbred with them, that could be plausible, but ... genocide isn't really my thing.

So it's either kinda implausible or it's kinda distasteful.

That's why not.


Actually, I like the idea of a setting a few centuries after the "extinction".

I got to thinking about it when the article came out about the modern tech ability ideas. Suppose you take the world now, where dwarfism is a rare human trait, and some humans may have more elvish features and some more brutish; and then introduce underground cells of elves or dwarves who have persisted in small hidden cloisters. You could play as a pure race and still pass yourself off as a flavor of human in public.

[Daishain]

This edition doesn't (yet) have this problem to a great degree, but I'm actually a fan of restricting the diversity of sapient races. There are too many out there to really be believable in the context of a single world.

With that stated, I think that a player ought to have a chance to A.) negotiate their favored race into the setting, B.) be a visitor from another world where their race does exist, or C.) play a thematically similar race using their favored race's stats.

[Nifft]

Actually, I like the idea of a setting a few centuries after the "extinction". That's a really cool idea.


This edition doesn't (yet) have this problem to a great degree, but I'm actually a fan of restricting the diversity of sapient races. There are too many out there to really be believable in the context of a single world. Thinking more about the "believable context" thing, I'm now recalling that Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved did some neat stuff:

1 - Uplifts. There were two races of former animals which got magically uplifted into people.

2 - Transformation. The Mojh, who were humans who turned themselves into dragon-hybrid people, and they become asexual but they can bud off a kobold. (Which is just super-cool IMHO; best kobold origin story ever.)

3 - Same race, different expression. The Faen were basically all the small-people races, but you could get different racial traits by choosing between three types, even though all three were the same underlying species.

[Thrudd]

More ways to explain many sentient races:
A setting that exists at the intersection of several parallel dimensions. Tribes of sentient species from various dimensions have been stranded here for various amounts of time and developed societies interacting with one another.

Instead of or in addition to multi dimensions, game takes place on a planet that was once a hub of intergalactic trade. After space dark ages, being cut off from space travel and tech manufacturing for millenia, communities of sentients developed new societies with lower tech levels.

Different sentients may be results of genetic engineering by ancient advanced civilizations, who survived the fall of their parents and established their own niche, probably after cataclysm, ala Planet of the Apes, or At the Mountains of Madness. Maybe the animal-like humanoids were once experiments meant to make species capable of life on some specific planet, or bred as an underclass of workers or soldiers. Parallel to this, the survivors of the parent species diversified and evolved in different directions as well, possibly by engineering themselves into sub species capable of adapting to new environments. In the distant future, descendants of all these live in proximity to one another around areas that were once centers of their ancestors' civilzation.

Maybe the setting is the battleground/playground of deities which have each seeded a race of their own in order to stake a claim to this world/plane. Eventually, each deity hopes to win out over the others and be the only/supreme ruler by having their species wipe out or convert all the others.

[Hawkstar]

Nah, what you should do is realize that a bunch of environment-locked prey-animals and herbivores are not at all similar to a species of omni-environment omnivores who are at the top of every food chain and who cause the extinction of every species with whom they competed.

Then, once you see the difference, you could try to make a comparison which is relevant... if you can find one.We still have distinctive human races, though we've only recently (in our evolutionary history) been treating them as equals. That also works. Just make the physical deviations between races significantly more pronounced, and disable interracial offspring outside of a few 'ring' species types.

From what I can tell, humans only evolved in one area before spreading out too recently to have become divergent species. The few species we competed with (Neanderthalls") have recently been proven to not actually meet the classic definition of "Different Species", and were extremely geographically close to humans. (And may have been more like Brontosaurus in a lot of ways anyway, since we put their spines on backward when we first relearned about them)


I guess if you want to run a campaign about how the Elves or Hobbits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis) get hunted to extinction and will only exist as trace DNA among the humans who interbred with them, that could be plausible, but ... genocide isn't really my thing.
Neanderthals were not hunted to extinction - in fact, there's no solid evidence of enmity between the species at all. Instead, it's more likely that they were simply assimilated into human culture. No genocide involved at all. It could very well be that all these other now-extinct hominid species, while clearly physically distinct from humans, failed to possess the 'cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring' distinction of a species. So, that, fantastically speaking, D&D worlds take place in an era with lots of competing and cooperating races, though the end result, dozens of millenia if not more down the road, is a single species of Humanelfdwarforcaflingnomes that end up looking like... well, humans, because humans were already the 'middle race'

... And Tolkien's story is about the eventual extinction of the Elves and the Hobbits in our world, at least in the background.

[Fizban]

7: Other

I'd fully support a properly thought out world with limited sapient peoples, but I'm not gonna commit without seeing the list (and potentially having some input cause I like worldbuilding too). Obviously I wouldn't play if I didn't like any of the races-but I've liked humans in every edition I've played so unless you've banned them I'm probably good.

[Ralanr]

How are you drawing a line between these two? The reason you will never be able to play a kender in a game I run is that there are no kender in my setting, or in any of the existing settings I might be tempted to run (Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft). The reason I will never be tempted to run a setting that has kender, though, is that I loathe kender.

No Kendar? I'll play a halfing!

Kendar are just annoying versions of halfings from what I understand. And they have advantage to being frightened.

[KorvinStarmast]

Instead of or in addition to multi dimensions, game takes place on a planet that was once a hub of intergalactic trade. After space dark ages, being cut off from space travel and tech manufacturing for millenia, communities of sentients developed new societies with lower tech levels.

Different sentients may be results of genetic engineering by ancient advanced civilizations, who survived the fall of their parents and established their own niche, probably after cataclysm, ...
... the survivors of the parent species diversified and evolved in different directions as well, possibly by engineering themselves into sub species capable of adapting to new environments. These points greatly resemble Tekumel, subject of the Empire of the Petal Throne, developed by professor M.A.R. Barker and published by TSR beginning in 1975. I DM'd a Tekumel game for a couple of years.


Kendar are just annoying versions of halfings from what I understand Ain't that the truth? As much as I enjoyed Dragonlance books, Weiss and Hickman didn't quite get this right.

[JoeJ]

B - If there are lots of races, they have a plausible reason for being on the same planet. If the setting has activist gods, and a race was just created last week because that's what the god of randomly creating new races does this time of year, that's fine. If the setting is Sigil and everyone got in through a portal from somewhere else, that's fine. But don't tell me elves, dwarves, humans and halflings all evolved together.

In a fantasy setting with active gods, I wouldn't bet on any of the races having evolved at all. It's more likely the gods simply created them in their present forms.

If you insist on purely naturalistic explanations, however, then it's clear that humans, elves, and orcs had a recent common ancestor, otherwise half-orcs and half-elves wouldn't be possible. And looking at the parallel to this world, anatomically and behaviorally modern humans lived side by side with neanderthals in Europe for about 5,000 years and shared the planet with them for at least 30,000. (Or more like 150,000 years if you look at only at modern anatomy without consideration of behavior.)

[rollingForInit]

I'm fine with specific races being banned for plot-reasons, as long as it isn't too restrictive. I wouldn't be too happy if I could just choose between humans, elves and dwarves, for instance. I like my variety.

[Gracht Grabmaw]

1. In fact I used to get mad at my old DM for always allowing the other guys to play whatever, with not even a thought given to how they would fit into the campaign.
Look, I agree that suli and vishakanya and kitsune are all pretty cool races, but what the hell are they all doing in the middle of not-Transylvania fighting the vykdlak?

[Grey Watcher]

How are you drawing a line between these two? The reason you will never be able to play a kender in a game I run is that there are no kender in my setting, or in any of the existing settings I might be tempted to run (Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft). The reason I will never be tempted to run a setting that has kender, though, is that I loathe kender.

I dunno, I guess it depends on how nicely you tell me "no" when I ask if I can play a kender. :smalltongue: (Note to self, look up what a kender is due to critical failure on Knowledge (D&D) roll.)

Seriously though, most of the time, I'll want to know what races are on the table going in, and I'm generally fine to abide by that list. On the other hand, if you say that the PHB races all exist, but for, whatever reason, I can't play a Gnome (or I HAVE to play an Elf), I'm gonna want a good reason why (or be good enough friends with you that I can trust that you'll eventually reveal a good reason).

For example, if you told me "human characters only" because we were playing a game in which we were real-world people magically teleported to a D&D campaign setting (how original!), I'd go along with this. Or if you tell me I can't be a Dragonborn, Orc, or Half-Orc because the campaign revolves around an invasion of those species against the roundteeth (eg humans, elves, etc.), then I can go along with that.

Basically, I don't mind being told "no" if there's a good reason for it. And since you went ahead and picked a setting that precludes your least favorite race before you even proposed the game, I'd be fine.


I guess if you want to run a campaign about how the Elves or Hobbits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis) get hunted to extinction and will only exist as trace DNA among the humans who interbred with them, that could be plausible, but ... genocide isn't really my thing.

So it's either kinda implausible or it's kinda distasteful.

Well, who says it has to turn out that way, just because it did on our planet? Or, heck, if you want to draw the analogy that exactly, maybe Orcs are the Neanderthals, which puts your typical "Let's go kill some orcs!" low level quest in an especially grim light.

Plus, I would venture a guess that most campaigns don't take a long enough view of things for the eventual fate of the entire species to be relevant, except in the "We have to stop the Demon King from ushering in ten thousand years of darkness!" vein.

[VoxRationis]

Well, who says it has to turn out that way, just because it did on our planet? Or, heck, if you want to draw the analogy that exactly, maybe Orcs are the Neanderthals, which puts your typical "Let's go kill some orcs!" low level quest in an especially grim light.

Actually, I have dwarves be the descendants of Neanderthals in my settings. Think about it; they're basically like humans, but shorter and squatter, with robust facial features and large noses, and associated with cold places and mountains. If you have enough underground caverns in the mountain ranges, you could easily see neanderthals moving up into the mountains and then into the caverns as the climate got warmer. There, reproductively isolated from the humans, their features become exaggerated and they become no longer reproductively compatible with humans (unlike their ancestors).
Orcs are weird. Their facial structure looks australopithecine, but they're explicitly noted as biologically compatible with humans.

[Ralanr]

Actually, I have dwarves be the descendants of Neanderthals in my settings. Think about it; they're basically like humans, but shorter and squatter, with robust facial features and large noses, and associated with cold places and mountains. If you have enough underground caverns in the mountain ranges, you could easily see neanderthals moving up into the mountains and then into the caverns as the climate got warmer. There, reproductively isolated from the humans, their features become exaggerated and they become no longer reproductively compatible with humans (unlike their ancestors).
Orcs are weird. Their facial structure looks australopithecine, but they're explicitly noted as biologically compatible with humans.

Didn't humans crossbreed with Neanderthals?

[VoxRationis]

Didn't humans crossbreed with Neanderthals?

Yes, to some degree. Not the African populations of AMH, obviously, and probably not certain other populations, and the amount of Neanderthal DNA currently in a modern human is a tiny fraction, but studies have lent credence to such a hypothesis.
But the theoretical dwarf evolutionary process implies that one or more populations remained geographically or behaviorally isolated.

[Sigreid]

This edition doesn't (yet) have this problem to a great degree, but I'm actually a fan of restricting the diversity of sapient races. There are too many out there to really be believable in the context of a single world.



This would be true except part of the reality of most D&D games is planer travel. Everyone didn't have to evolve together when portals can toss people in from another realm, and now they've been here long enough that they think they've always been here. I can see the argument that there would be conflict that would settle things, but if a new race were put down in an isolated enough area, they could easily gain a foothold before they encountered another race.

It could also be that they are different races in the context we have in our real world right now. The basic idea is that they are all humans, but where different environment pressures created people of different skin colors etc. here in a world with magic exposure to these forces could cause more radical changes.

I'm not saying you have to have the 50 million sapient races, just that it's not that hard to justify them all sharing the same world in a fantasy setting. For that matter, there is not really any reason your campaign world has to be round. Maybe it's an endless flat expanse growing ever into the primordial chaos.

[Tallis]

In my own games I've usually allowed unusual choices as long as the player can come up with a justification for them being there. However I have run a few games that were more specific about the feel I wanted and only allowed certain races that fit that feel.
I'd be all for a game with restricted races, I'm fine playing whatever's available as long as the campaign is interesting.

[Mechalich]

Desired racial diversity in a setting for the purpose of writing a novel is different from the desired racial diversity in a setting for the purpose of playing D&D. The desired racial diversity is going to vary from gaming group to gaming group and will depend heavily on what your players want. If the members of your group don't really care about playing anything other than humans, restrict all you want. If they want to play all the core races, you need to include those, if they want to play unusual races, you can probably think of a way to include those that people are actually interested in playing. If you really want to restrict races in a serious way, or a your campaign concept requires it, you need to approach your players about it before the start of the campaign and make sure they're okay with that. if they aren't you should probably shelve that idea for a later date.


Personally, I'm fine with having a large number of fantasy races in a given setting providing the setting is designed with the assumption that they're all there and there is a reasonable explanation for it. Admittedly the idea of an planet evolving a large number of sapient races occupying mostly the same ecological niche at the same time is unlikely. Yes a small number - less than half a dozen almost for certain - of hominids may have occupied portions of Earth at once, but that really doesn't resemble the average fantasy world creation situation in any way. However, there's no reason why the gods couldn't have created dozens of races. Or, if you're including the greater D&D multiverse at all, no reason why dozens or hundreds of races couldn't migrate to any specific world.

I do think having a lot of races does change certain features. While races are not cultures, for races with small overall numbers and/or high localization, race and culture are likely to have very high overlap. If all the gnomes come from a single island, then they probably only have one culture, and people will consider the gnome race and the gnome culture synonymously. Since the more races you add the smaller the average population of each race becomes, the more likely this is to occur.

[Graustein]

I tend to err on the side of less Hominid Species in favour of more racial diversity within those Hominid Species.

So, I don't mind if there's only Humans, Dwarves and Halflings, but so help me if everyone's white I will flip tables.

My greatest preference is (as others have said) for it to be meaningful. So I'm ok with Humans, Dwarves and Halflings, but I'd be even happier with racially diverse Humans (with or without mechanical differences; that's really hard to do sensitively), some Warforged, maybe Goblins or Kobolds or Gnomes (just one), and perhaps Aaracokra or something as an NPC race.

[Hawkstar]

It could also be that they are different races in the context we have in our real world right now. The basic idea is that they are all humans, but where different environment pressures created people of different skin colors etc. here in a world with magic exposure to these forces could cause more radical changes.

There's also a chance of convergent evolution as well, allowing the different 'races' to actually be different species.

[MadGrady]

From a purely gut reaction - I love having a lot of variety. As a player, I like to have options, so i love having lots of races to pick characters from.

However, I have played games where the races were limited, and I was ok with that as well. But my preference is to have a lot of options.

As for monsters as such, I definitely can agree that its ok to limit those.

[Stan]

1.
I'm ok with kitchen sink setting occasionally but I feel that if every game has all the possible races, it makes them too similar to each other. I'd rather go with a strong theme most of the time.

I've been in a fair number of historical fantasy games. In those case, you're not just in setting loosely modeled on a TV version of a historical place, you are in a fairly closely modeled version of that place, though often modeled on what people of the time believed. In those cases, most nonhuman races totally break the feel of the game. You might have dwarves modeled on how they appeared in Arthur and half elves representing various fey touched but not the whole gamut.

If a DM wanted to jettison most of the core races because they feel tired and boring, I'd be ok with that. I like Tolkien but I'm sick of the constant pastiches. Too many people think fantasy has to be based on, derived from, or in reaction to Tolkien.

[VoxRationis]

Interesting. Doing a quick tally—with some error because I had to quickly interpret certain responses in order to fit them into categories for tallying purposes—it seems like #1 was the most popular response, which I did not expect. Second most popular (but by a long shot) was the very GitP-ish "everything can be refluffed" camp, and coming in third was #2.

[Sigreid]

There's also a chance of convergent evolution as well, allowing the different 'races' to actually be different species.

Agree. In a setting like D&D there are really endless reasons the could all be stuck together.

[-Jynx-]

I'm partial to #1. I appreciate campaigns that have at least some segregation to their races (as twisted as that sounds). I'm not oppose to most races existing in the world, but I would feel with the cultural and physical diversity you see among the races that a large degree of racism should exist in any world with that many races. It's not right, but it's "real".

That being said its unlikely that [insert all these pc race diversities] all got together under one banner to do the thing and win the points.

[Garimeth]

I only run games in home brewed campaigns, and in my main setting (which is system agnostic, though I run 13th Age currently) the races are wood and high elf, dwarf, Halfling, human, and "barbarian" (a refluffed halforc that resembles a half-giant). All of them have highly localized racial cultures in a excessively violent and isolated setting where every winter the dead who have not been consecrated or cremated rise within hours of their death as zombies. In turn my setting has very specific funerary practices, and at least a 2 paragraph write-up for each culture/country on common religious and social customs.


As a player I'm really good with whatever as long as it makes sense.

[Nifft]

I'm partial to #1. I appreciate campaigns that have at least some segregation to their races (as twisted as that sounds). I'm not oppose to most races existing in the world, but I would feel with the cultural and physical diversity you see among the races that a large degree of racism should exist in any world with that many races. It's not right, but it's "real".

That being said its unlikely that [insert all these pc race diversities] all got together under one banner to do the thing and win the points.

I feel like racism ought to be a cultural thing, not an inherently racial thing (and in fact assigning race == culture is kinda racist).

So there might be one Dwarf from Downtown Tradersville who says, "I love humans! They buy my beer! I love elves! They supply me with fresh berries to make my beer!"

And there might be another Dwarf from the Lonely Mountain who says, "I hate humans! They keep trying to farm our traditional grazing lands! Don't they understand the value of tradition? And I hate elves! They keep trying to stop us from expanding our lumber production! Don't they understand that we're creating jobs down here?"

IMHO, both are realistic.

[Garimeth]

I feel like racism ought to be a cultural thing, not an inherently racial thing (and in fact assigning race == culture is kinda racist).

So there might be one Dwarf from Downtown Tradersville who says, "I love humans! They buy my beer! I love elves! They supply me with fresh berries to make my beer!"

And there might be another Dwarf from the Lonely Mountain who says, "I hate humans! They keep trying to farm our traditional grazing lands! Don't they understand the value of tradition? And I hate elves! They keep trying to stop us from expanding our lumber production! Don't they understand that we're creating jobs down here?"

IMHO, both are realistic.

I agree, and even within that settlement different people socialized different ways and with different occupational and political leanings probably have conflicting opinions in the community.

[Nifft]

I agree, and even within that settlement different people socialized different ways and with different occupational and political leanings probably have conflicting opinions in the community.

Absolutely, yes.

There's baseline normal (for your culture / local community), and then there's your individual reaction to that baseline. Do you like "normal", or are you a rebel for some reason? That's an interesting character decision, and it's independent of race -- unless your race is politically significant in some way, like if you were discriminated against in your community.

[Bulldog Psion]

Give me an extra-large portion of #6, please. :smallbiggrin:

[Alikat]

I've been dying to play a campaign in the Dragon Age settings since the first time I set foot in Origins. I love the way they establish races. Dwarves are entirely subterranean with only outcasts on the surface. Qunari(goliath-tiefling hybrids) are from another continent. Elves live in slums in human cities with a few gypsy like nomadic tribes in the forest. Darkspawn(basically orcs/goblins/ogres) are magically corrupted versions of the other four species. Humans of course are massively predominant, and any magic user not living in a state-ran prison is hunted down and executed.

Stupid knife ears belong in their ghettos with the rest of the filth!

[hymer]

Stupid knife ears belong in their ghettos with the rest of the filth!

Shut it, shem. You won't get to be in my party with that attitude! :smallwink:
Edit: Link (http://baconbuddies.dk/) to my DM's campaign page.

[Vogonjeltz]

Taking a quick poll here:
How important is it, in your opinion, that the breadth of sentient creatures in the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook be represented in a setting that you were to play in? If a campaign setting said something to the tune of "this is a single Europe-sized continent and fitting all these different species, each with their own subdivisions and their own substantial population bases, into it is improbable," what would be your reaction? Would you say:
1."I have no problem with this creative choice on the part of the setting's developer, and would gladly play whatever races are in the setting;"
2."Monsters are the DM's purview, and if there aren't all of them in the setting, that's okay, but I want access to all the races from the Player's Handbook;"
3."It's okay if I can't play drow or dragonborn or something like that—the Player's Handbook specifically says they're not in every setting—but I have to be able to play a dwarf, elf, or halfling;"
4."How dare someone restrict that! I would not play in such a setting, and object to the concept on principle;"
5."It's not to my taste, but it's not intrinsically wrong as a setting for other people to play in."
6."It's fine for NPCs, but I should be given exceptions to the established nature of the campaign setting, since I'm a player."
7.[Other]

Edited to add new option in line with previous responses

It depends. I typically play only humans, however, I would find it odd if my choices were restricted unless that restriction was intrinsically in line with either the setting or the theme of who the player characters are.

For example, if it was set in a world in which elves were considered myth, then I wouldn't kvetch about not having the option of playing an elf (or maybe the DM would be ok with that if it worked for story reasons). (setting reasons)

If we were all supposed to be survivors of a massacre of a halfling village, it would be weird if I demanded to be a dragonborn or dwarf or human. (thematic reasons)

If the PHB races exist in the setting then I'd be taken aback if I couldn't pick whichever one I wanted to. MM races really aren't suitable (as is) for player characters, but I'd have no problem with the DM using the rules in the DMG to make a version of them available, the same way the Aaracokra is. That being said, I probably wouldn't bother taking that option if left to my own devices, but I might if the DM suggested it as a change of pace.

[Sindeloke]

Do you have a link to your setting?

Not as such. I've been trying to assemble it into a single coherent presentation a la WotC's setting supplements instead of a vast scattered hodgepodge of files on three computers and notes in seven different journals, but it's slow going.


Qunari(goliath-tiefling hybrids)

:smallconfused: Qunari are, if anything D&D, a dwarf/dragonborn hybrid. They are the absolute opposite of the chaotic, individualized, self-interested, marginalized tieflings who look back to the greatness of a fallen empire, and of the isolationist, nomadic, individualized goliaths who leave the weak where they fall and glorify competition over communal cooperation and self-promotion over acceptance of one's role.

If you need to short-hand qunari I'd go with "horned giants whose culture resembles an ant colony, or maybe the Borg".

[Stan]

What would help with diversity is if more people stopped playing stereotypes. I swear 2/3 of the dwarf characters that I've seen have personalities indistinguishable from each other. And far too many gnomes and halflings have personalities modeled on their Dragonlance versions.

[Sigreid]

What would help with diversity is if more people stopped playing stereotypes. I swear 2/3 of the dwarf characters that I've seen have personalities indistinguishable from each other. And far too many gnomes and halflings have personalities modeled on their Dragonlance versions.

Well, to be fair, stereo types come about because they are a visible trait that people have in common. It doesn't mean the stereo type always holds true, is derogatory, isn't something society has forced on them, or hasn't out lived the trait that initially caused it to come forward. A classic example would be "Men are better drivers than women". Once upon a time families typically could only afford one care. The man was the one who had to go to work, so he was the one that got more practice driving. Now that women have for quite some time been driving as much as men, the stereo type doesn't hold water, but you can still hear it.

[VoxRationis]

What would help with diversity is if more people stopped playing stereotypes. I swear 2/3 of the dwarf characters that I've seen have personalities indistinguishable from each other. And far too many gnomes and halflings have personalities modeled on their Dragonlance versions.

At the same time, far too many end up playing anti-stereotypical dwarves, elves, etc. who end up coming across as identical to a human for 90% of the game.

[Madeiner]

I'd say 1, but it depends on how well estabilished the campaign is.
For example, i'm gearing up to play a Warcraft campaign.
There are no halflings there, and the world is quite well enstabilished that it doesnt have halflings. They are not part of the story, you cannot play one.

However, a less-estabilished setting is different. Your homebrew setting, which maybe has only one continent detailed, could very well have other undiscovered races, and a player can get to play a special race if he likes too, provided he knows that there are very,very few others like him.

[LaserFace]

[1]"I have no problem with this creative choice on the part of the setting's developer, and would gladly play whatever races are in the setting;"


As a player in a game, I might ask about why a particular restriction exists. But, I'll probably conform to the setting.

When I run a game, I'd like the players to experience the setting I had in mind. But ultimately, I'm DMing for my friends and I want us all to have a good time. If they want to deviate substantially from my idea, we'll just do something else. But, if they're still interested in my setting but want me to tweak it for their enjoyment, I'll probably make it possible because I want everyone to enjoy the game.

[Stan]

At the same time, far too many end up playing anti-stereotypical dwarves, elves, etc. who end up coming across as identical to a human for 90% of the game.

That's true too. It's like they're just in it for the mechanical options.

[TheOOB]

I can see all the choices being valid, it depends on the purpose of the setting and campaign. If the purpose of your campaign, in whole or in part is to deal with racial issues I'd expect some restrictions on race to be in place. (for anyone looking for an RPG that does this look up Dog Eat Dog, it's both fun and profoundly unsettleing, I recommend it). However, if you're campaign is a traditional empowerment fantasy, restrictions on race may not be appropriate, far be it from you to tell me what my empowerment fantasy is.

[Knaight]

Well, to be fair, stereo types come about because they are a visible trait that people have in common. It doesn't mean the stereo type always holds true, is derogatory, isn't something society has forced on them, or hasn't out lived the trait that initially caused it to come forward. A classic example would be "Men are better drivers than women". Once upon a time families typically could only afford one care. The man was the one who had to go to work, so he was the one that got more practice driving. Now that women have for quite some time been driving as much as men, the stereo type doesn't hold water, but you can still hear it.

That's one source. Occasionally they also come up because they're useful to disseminate among people in power, and they're about people that the holders of the stereotypes have frequently literally never met (at least knowingly).

[Susano-wo]

I'd go with 1 with the caveats that

the restriction should not be for terribly arbitrary reasons (E.G. We're playing a stereotypical fantasyverse, but you disallow, say, Elves, or Dwarves cause you just don't like em),
if you restrict too many, you should add some more subraces (since a big part of the appeal of lots of races is a variety of stat/ability packages for players),
and you should generally work with to player to try to find a way to do the concept they want in a way that fits in your world.



I'll also give a hearty "Hear, hear!" to separating race and culture. unless the Elves, Dwarves, Oompah Loompahs, etc are small enough in population to only populate one area, there is no reason for them to not have multiple cultures between them.

Finally, just because once upon a time it might have (anthropological guesses are just that, no matter how educated he guesses may be--remember when it was thought that homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals?) happened that a sapient species wiped out the competition it faced doesn't mean that it is an inevitability, especially when you have races (Dwarves particularly come to mind) who are much more suitable for some environments over others.

[Alikat]

Not as such. I've been trying to assemble it into a single coherent presentation a la WotC's setting supplements instead of a vast scattered hodgepodge of files on three computers and notes in seven different journals, but it's slow going.



:smallconfused: Qunari are, if anything D&D, a dwarf/dragonborn hybrid. They are the absolute opposite of the chaotic, individualized, self-interested, marginalized tieflings who look back to the greatness of a fallen empire, and of the isolationist, nomadic, individualized goliaths who leave the weak where they fall and glorify competition over communal cooperation and self-promotion over acceptance of one's role.

If you need to short-hand qunari I'd go with "horned giants whose culture resembles an ant colony, or maybe the Borg".

I was describing physical characteristics which I think is pretty accurate. Not the culture. If going by culture, DA elves aren't even elves.

[rlc]

And you're giving up what now? Reading? Watching TV? Surfing the internet? What it gives you is the chance to play D&D.

You're giving up character options. If we're assuming that everybody involved is being reasonable, then it shouldn't be a problem, but that can be a pretty big assumption sometimes.

[Sigreid]

That's one source. Occasionally they also come up because they're useful to disseminate among people in power, and they're about people that the holders of the stereotypes have frequently literally never met (at least knowingly).

It pretty much always has an experiential source, even if it's not an accurate description of the whole. "Dwarves are gruff smiths" really may just be I've only seen 3 dwarves in my life and they coincidentally all have been smiths. "Goblins are all Bandits" poor goblins can't get a job in any other line of work 'cause of racism.

[rlc]

Goblinlivesmatter?

[VoxRationis]

I was describing physical characteristics which I think is pretty accurate. Not the culture. If going by culture, DA elves aren't even elves.

Eh, the Dalish are pretty archetypically elven, if not for the same reasons as "normal" elves. Wanderers living in the forest, remembering "old ways," skilled with magic and herbalism, crafting weapons and armor from wood and leather, etc. They're even considered to be fine archers, which is odd, since in DA:O elves didn't get any bonuses which made them even on par with humans in that respect.

[goto124]

That's true too. It's like they're just in it for the mechanical options.

I find that human personalities can vary a lot, while fantasy races (elves and dwarves usually) tend to be Human But With A Hat. It's possible for a human to use elegant weapons and act high-class & haughty (like an elf), or for hir to have a big beard, drink a lot and be rought & gruff (like a dwarf), but be still considered human. Not anti-stereotype human, mostly because there doesn't really seem to be a 'stereotype human'.

[Malifice]

The appeal of this setting, Mr. Desperately-Needs-To-Find-Misconceptions-Man, is that it is a setting which makes sense under its own consistent logic and doesn't shoehorn about 50 competing species in where there aren't enough niches for more than a dozen. And I said nothing about anything other than the size of the setting, and certainly did not forget the Silk Road, the Muslim invasions, or the veritable conveyor belt of nomadic tribes streaming westward from the Eurasian steppes.

Umm. Big difference is that in most DnD worlds:

1) Evolution didnt happen. A God or Gods did it.
2) Magic exists.

Based on the fact that omnipotent and omniscient beings are demonstrably able to be proved to me to exist in the 'in game' reality, as does reality altering magic able to be controlled by a non divine mortal being, than any assertions you make that rely on 'science' need to be questioned (at the very least).

Pig headed men exist alongside winged dwarves and cat men with blue fur and floating balls of slime because 'god'

[goto124]

To be fair, sometimes things can be taken too far and just get plain silly and ridiculous.

[Mechalich]

The real trick to having many races in a setting is not how they got there (because gods) but how they continue to exist. Any race needs to meet a minimum population threshold in order to sustain itself without dealing with constant inbreeding problems and the massive societal disruption that's comes with it (forced breeding schemes, minimum children requirements, etc.). Also, if they can interbreed, or even be attracted to and form fulfilling emotional and physical relationships with other races, then the core population needs some reason to prevent this from happening in large numbers. That means a situation where the entirety of the elven race, say, lives in an urban environment surrounded by a massive human population that they mix freely with is not sustainable in the long term.

So for large numbers of races to even survive there has to be some measure of spatial segregation. You can't have one village in one hundred randomly be halflings, their race falls apart. You need a region where a large percentage of the villages are halflings. There are exceptions of course: like Sigil - a vast completely intermixed urban environment lacking the typical human majority, but you can't make a typical fantasy world out of just that.

With regard to stereotypes: it is important to differentiate between adventurer stereotypes and stereotypes of the base population. The overwhelming majority of people, even in a high-magic D&D world, are low-level commoners who differ primarily in what environment they live in and what kind of crops they grow. However, most people never encounter commoners of other races because they don't get to visit the lands where the other races are in the majority (they also don't get to visit lands where the other cultures of their own races are in the majority either) so their image of other races is defined by the adventurers who feature in their mythology and stories.

[Malifice]

To be fair, sometimes things can be taken too far and just get plain silly and ridiculous.

Yet Flumphs are a thing.

[VoxRationis]

That's kind of the point. The Monster Manual has an enormous diversity of sentient creatures within its pages, but a lot of them are kind of silly on the face of things, and even the serious ones will have trouble all fitting into one area.

@Mechalich: Thank you. Very well-put.