Create your ideal PC race Listfor your D&D dream game

[ZorroGames]

Inspired (well, that is a bit OTT... maybe tainted or twisted...) by the “most boring race” thread I thought, “Okay, how would (you, me, all the forum experts) do it?”

guidelines, which no one will follow...

1) No specific setting (Drainshift, FadeRun, Dark Grey Sun, Boreron, etc.,) but just a sandbox world

2) You establish a once and forever list of PC races. Everything else is an NPC or does not exist. Basically you are the one and only creative “god” to establish the world of D&D.

3) Subraces assumed unless specifically noted as, “just no!”

Being the Traditionalist Rebel, here is my list:

Dwarf - Yes (Surely you did not doubt?) with a no for Duregar

Elf - Yes but Drow just no

Halfling - Lightfoot only, Stout just no, Ghostwise no.
Yes, one subrace to rule them all!

Human - Yes

Dragonborn - just no

Gnome - Yes (especially if I want to go home to my wife) :smallwink:

Half-Elf - Just no

Half-Orc - No

Tiefling - Just no

Aasimar - Yes *

Firbolg - Yes *

Goliath - Yes *

Kenku - just no

Lizardfolk - No *

Tabaxi - Just No

Triton - Yes *

Bugbear, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Kobold - No *

Orc - just no *

* = not seen one played yet but my decision/prejudice.

Your turn(s) guys and gals.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No gnomes, no drow. No kenku.

NO KENDER

Other than that, I'm not picky.

[smcmike]

Halflings only.

[Aett_Thorn]

If it were me and I could have whatever list I wanted?

Wemic
Centaur
Satyr
Lizardfolk
Dragonborn
Kenku
Saurials
Alaghi
Minotaur

Enough of these bipedal monkey-kin. Give me some real variety!

[Tvtyrant]

Mortals: Natural species, normal procreation methods and closely related.
Elf
Human
Dwarf
Mul (half-dwarf, half-human)
Gnome (half-human, half-elf)
Hobbit (half-elf, half-dwarf)

Beastmen: Artificial species made from combining Mortals with various animals to produce slave races in the mythic past.
Minotaur
Gnoll
Lizardfolk
Bugbears
Dragonmen
Satyr
Centaur

Fey: Invasive immortals from other worlds. They have quickly fading memories, so while their bodies are immortal their experience tends to be short.
Sprite
Pixie
Hag

[strangebloke]

TL;DR: I don't allow gnomes, halflings, Kenku, Aaracockra, firbolgs, bugbears, tabaxi, yuan-ti, vampires, or anything else not explicitly spelled out below. I am fond of minotaurs and centaurs, which I homebrewed into existence, and I'd honestly allow warforged if it ever came up.

Here's what I'm doing:

Humans: Anything that bleeds red. These creatures are relatively short-lived, leaving only their institutions and offspring behind. They can all interbreed, but a kid of mixed blood is usually of the same race as one of it's parents.
-a dwarf is a type of human that lives in the hills or mountains and is a bit shorter and stockier than most. "Dwarf" was once an insult, but these days many wear that title with pride.
-an elf is a human whose family has studied magic for generations, and has undergone physical changes as a result. Lifespan is slightly greater than a human's.
-Tieflings, aasimar, genasi, drow, duergar, etc. are all 'touched' by magic in some way. Maybe some demonic ancestry resurfaced, maybe they were exposed to some bad spell as a kid, or maybe they were blessed by the gods. Either way, these are all seen as disfigurements. Embarrassing, but not as important as what country you were born into.


Drakonids: Dragons were the first born of the gods, the designated caretakers of the world. After the lesser races rebelled, many dragons retreated from the world and made races of their own.
-Dragonborn are diplomats, officers, and administrators, designed by the dragons to be brave and loyal.
-Kobolds are menial miners and laborers. They are designed to worship dragons and possess no sense of self-preservation (though they try to preserve the pack as much as possible)
-Lizardfolk are scouts and hunters. Dragons designed them for total independence, which is why they have natural attacks and armor.


Orcs: The orcs are a people defined by passion and will, and if an orc adopts a new ideology, they will undergo corresponding physiological changes as well.
-Gray Orcs(Orcs) prize strength, lesser orcs(goblins) prize survival, mountain orcs(goliaths) prize endurance, orcs of the plains(hobgoblins) prize order... and so on.
-Orcs who live their lives with unwavering commitment to their ideology will not grow old when their peers do, but will keep growing and getting stronger. This is where ogres and most forms of giants come from.
-Should a giant lose his way and fall from his ideology, he may regress into the form of a hill giant or Formorian.
-Orcs who live in a human settlement can acquire human characteristics. (half-orc) Such people have a tough time fitting in in either world.


Monsters: Creatures formed of the interaction between the Light of Creation and the Shadow of Corruption
-Monstrosities are normal animals who are filled with an unusual indwelling of the Light for a creature of their kind, much like a Giant is to an Orc, or an epic hero is to a human.
-Aberrations are normal creatures twisted by Shadow.
-Demons and celestials are beings of pure shadow and light.
-Undead and Fey are formed by the clash of Shadow and Light. With undead the forces negate each other and leave a void. with Fey, the forces set each other on fire and ignite.
-generally not playable, with a few exceptions.

[Akolyte01]

Mortals: Natural species, normal procreation methods and closely related.
Elf
Human
Dwarf
Mul (half-dwarf, half-human)
Gnome (half-human, half-elf)
Hobbit (half-elf, half-dwarf)

Beastmen: Artificial species made from combining Mortals with various animals to produce slave races in the mythic past.
Minotaur
Gnoll
Lizardfolk
Bugbears
Dragonmen
Satyr
Centaur

Fey: Invasive immortals from other worlds. They have quickly fading memories, so while their bodies are immortal their experience tends to be short.
Sprite
Pixie
Hag

Cool take! Would your elves be particularly small? Or would gnomes be large?

[EvilAnagram]

Dwarf: Yes
Elf: Yes
Halfling: Yes
Human: Yes
Dragonborn: Yes
Gnome: Yes
Half-Elf: Yes
Half-Orc: Yes
Tiefling: Yes
Aasimar: Yes
Firbolg: Yes
Goliath: Yes
Kenku: Yes
Lizardfolk: Yes
Tabaxi: Yes
Triton: Yes
Bugbear: Yes
Goblin: Yes
Hobgoblin: Yes
Kobold: Yes
Orc: Yes

Limiting player race out of weird prejudice or personal dislike is incredibly douchey. If a setting prohibits something, fine, but imposing your weird baggage about how other people pretend in a fantasy game is a giant red flag that someone is controlling and not fun to be around.

I have yet to meet someone who complained about a race being for X group of [undesirable] people who wasn't immensely unpleasant, and quite often need of a bath.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Everything except Thri-kreen/all bug multi-armed people.


I have no qualms with allowing any other race regardless of setting.

[strangebloke]

Limiting player race out of weird prejudice or personal dislike is incredibly douchey. If a setting prohibits something, fine, but imposing your weird baggage about how other people pretend in a fantasy game is a giant red flag that someone is controlling and not fun to be around.

I have yet to meet someone who complained about a race being for X group of [undesirable] people who wasn't immensely unpleasant, and quite often need of a bath.

Methinks you're being unnecessarily harsh here.

"Fantasy Kitchen Sink" is a genre, but it's by no means the only one.

[strangebloke]

snip

I quite like this, but I feel that a gnome as an elf/human hybrid is kind of strange. Gnomes are smaller than either and more magical than either... hybrid vigor?

[Tvtyrant]

I quite like this, but I feel that a gnome as an elf/human hybrid is kind of strange. Gnomes are smaller than either and more magical than either... hybrid vigor?
That was what I was going for. Elves are barely medium in my setting, and Gnomes are smaller and more magical then their parents, and hobbits are smaller then their parents (but Dwarf blood is very nonemagical so they even out).

I suppose Gnomes could switch places with elves, hobbits being Gnome-Dwarves and elves being Gnome-Humans.

The problem with that is Halflings and Gnomes are less popular then elves, dwarves and humans so Gnomes make a strange base race.

Muls are actually larger and less magical then their parents.

[EvilAnagram]

Methinks you're being unnecessarily harsh here.
The whole point of this thread is to be harsh. I'm just not being harsh to the approved target.

The whole point of the thread that "inspired" this thread Is to be mean about other people's preferences. More than that, it served as an opportunity to group people into stereotypes (edgelords, emos, etc.) and denigrate them. It created a safe space for people to be venomous, and it has become a very popular thread because of that, as evinced by this thread sprouting to continue it. I'm just leaning into the theme.

[Akolyte01]

That was what I was going for. Elves are barely medium in my setting, and Gnomes are smaller and more magical then their parents, and hobbits are smaller then their parents (but Dwarf blood is very nonemagical so they even out).

I suppose Gnomes could switch places with elves, hobbits being Gnome-Dwarves and elves being Gnome-Humans.

The problem with that is Halflings and Gnomes are less popular then elves, dwarves and humans so Gnomes make a strange base race.

Muls are actually larger and less magical then their parents.

Could be:
Fey - Humans - Dwarves
Fey x Human = Elf
Fey x Dwarf = Gnome
Human x Dwarf = Halfling (height of a dwarf, but proportioned like a human)

[Akolyte01]

Could be:
Sprites - Humans - Dwarves
Sprite x Human = Elf
Sprite x Dwarf = Gnome
Human x Dwarf = Halfling (height of a dwarf, but proportioned like a human)

Man I might have to steal this myself actually..... Then there could be 'brutal' corruptions of the three main races....

Humans - Orcs
Dwarves - Trolls or Ogres
Fey - Goblins

[The Jack]

Goblinoids only. Hobgoblin redux making them essentially dwarves with 30ft speed but, no poison resistance or stonecunning.

An orc or human mercenary might be a valuable addition.

[strangebloke]

The whole point of this thread is to be harsh. I'm just not being harsh to the approved target.

The whole point of the thread that "inspired" this thread Is to be mean about other people's preferences. More than that, it served as an opportunity to group people into stereotypes (edgelords, emos, etc.) and denigrate them. It created a safe space for people to be venomous, and it has become a very popular thread because of that, as evinced by this thread sprouting to continue it. I'm just leaning into the theme.

Good grief.

Do I need to point out that most of the commentary in the thread thus far has been primarily creative, and directed towards stuff like "I think an all-goblin campaign would be grand!" or "This is my origin of races in my setting, some things got included or skipped because I don't like how they gelled with everything else." Or "I allow everything, I'm not picky."

I haven't read through all of the other thread, but I think you're being a bit more toxic than anyone here has been.

And, no, actually, I don't think that a DM who doesn't like a race for whatever reason should be looked down upon for banning it, particularly if its a custom setting, or if the presence of the race is not established in the setting. The DM does a ton of work integrating everything into the story. If a player chooses to play a kenku, the DM will have to establish kenku as a thing that exists in the setting, decide what peoples' opinions of a kenku are, roleplay guard after guard trying to talk to *whistles merrily* the kenku bard, and make an adventure or two centered around the Kenku's backstory. Suddenly, he's miming out a whistle conversation with the party bard and the party bard's mom...

If he finds them distasteful for whatever reason, that's a fair amount to ask of him. He could just not do any of that work, but don't we want GMs to engage with our backstories? If my DM doesn't personally care for Goliaths, I probably don't want to play one in his campaign, even though I love them, because he's either going to use them poorly or not at all.

Even worse is when a player decides halfway through the campaign that his new character is going to be something that literally did not exist at all in your setting up to that point, and you have to quickly integrate them.

As to terming people 'edgelords...' hey, I'm an edgelord. My next character is a hexblade/vengeance paladin with a greatsword. I wear that badge with pride. But usually when I speak about snowflakes/edgelords in the context of DND, I'm really talking about a genuinely problematic behavior in a group, like the player whose character just has to be so cool, no matter how much interparty conflict he causes, or the guy whose character has to be more special than everyone else's character. I can't speak to what others mean, but that's been my interpretation.

[Millstone85]

Dwarf, no subrace.

Elf, four subraces:
* dark elf, most in tune with subterranean life.
* high elf, closest to the fey origins of the race.
* sea elf, most in tune with aquatic life, salty or not.
* wood elf, most in tune with life among the trees.

Halfling, no subrace.

Human, four subraces:
* aasimar, descended from an angel, be it celestial or fiend.
* genasi, often of mixed dao/djinni/efreeti/marid ancestry.
* half-elf, descended from a fey, usually through an elf.
* planestaunch, as in not-planetouched, a regular human.

Lizardfolk, no subrace, numerous draconic feats.

[strangebloke]

snip
this makes me think you're handling subraces in a very strange manner. Dwarves are pretty weak without subraces. Unless you're making all dwarves hill dwarves?

[Millstone85]

this makes me think you're handling subraces in a very strange manner. Dwarves are pretty weak without subraces. Unless you're making all dwarves hill dwarves?Mountain dwarves, actually. Not sure what else you thought I was doing.

[MrStabby]

Everything without wings. Nothing with wings.

[EvilAnagram]

Do I need to point out that most of the commentary in the thread thus far has been primarily creative, and directed towards stuff like "I think an all-goblin campaign would be grand!" or "This is my origin of races in my setting, some things got included or skipped because I don't like how they gelled with everything else." Or "I allow everything, I'm not picky."
The OP began the thread using his admitted prejudice as a criterion. My post was in reply to that, and when I began it there were no other posts.


I haven't read through all of the other thread, but I think you're being a bit more toxic than anyone here has been.
Okay.


And, no, actually, I don't think that a DM who doesn't like a race for whatever reason should be looked down upon for banning it, particularly if its a custom setting, or if the presence of the race is not established in the setting.
I made an exception for races that don't fit the setting in my original post.


The DM does a ton of work integrating everything into the story. If a player chooses to play a kenku, the DM will have to establish kenku as a thing that exists in the setting, decide what peoples' opinions of a kenku are, roleplay guard after guard trying to talk to *whistles merrily* the kenku bard, and make an adventure or two centered around the Kenku's backstory. Suddenly, he's miming out a whistle conversation with the party bard and the party bard's mom...
As one of the standard dungeon masters in my group, who typically plays in homebrew settings with homebrew adventures, that's utter nonsense.

As the DM, I come up with the fundamental idea and run it by my players. If they're excited, I then take their input and develop the world based on how my idea sparks their imaginations because, at the end of the day, it is their game, too. If I am building a world, and one of then wants to play as a lizardfolk druid, then I can build it to fit that concept. They are the ones who are playing in that world, and I care about their input. To casually ignore the tastes and desires of my players in the interest of furthering my random whims would be incredibly inconsiderate.

Yes, DMs are owed respect and gratitude for taking the time to develop the adventure, but they are not owed absolute deference. Sure, setting limitations are worth respecting, and players should choose characters based off of the theme and tone of the game, but if someone runs a grab-bag game and arbitrarily forbids tieflings because they're for edgelord Mary Sues, then I'll gladly never play with them.


As to terming people 'edgelords...' hey, I'm an edgelord. My next character is a hexblade/vengeance paladin with a greatsword. I wear that badge with pride. But usually when I speak about snowflakes/edgelords in the context of DND, I'm really talking about a genuinely problematic behavior in a group, like the player whose character just has to be so cool, no matter how much interparty conflict he causes, or the guy whose character has to be more special than everyone else's character. I can't speak to what others mean, but that's been my interpretation.

I want to be clear, I'm not opposed to casual cruelty. I'm as fond of it as the next guy, and the next guy is much more fond of it than they would ever admit.

However, I hate it when people try to carve out a space to spew their venom that's safe from critique. If I'm going to rant about baseball, it's going to be to someone who loves it so they have the chance to call me on my bull. When I think people are being obtuse or behaving in a harmful way, I call them out. When I tease someone, it's someone who I know will tease me back. It's honest and fair.

When someone creates a thread about dumping on player choices (always moving subtly towards dumping on the players) and frames it to dissuade people from challenging those positions, they're just creating a space to spew bile without consequence. That I look down on. Anyone who doesn't have the courage to defend a position against hostile inquisition is an intellectual coward.

That said, the thread as a whole has evolved away from that trend since I first posted.

[Pex]

I'd prefer simple.

Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.

That's it.

Cuts down on the drama queens and edgy, gritty characters ad infinitum. I still have to deal with drunk dwarves, pompous elves, and larcenous halflings, but in theory it would get old fast since there's less room for the same thing but a different race. Ideally it would lead toward cultures instead of caricatures including human.

[Akolyte01]

Everything without wings. Nothing with wings.

Finally, a campaign where I can run my tarrasque PC! :smallbiggrin:

[Akolyte01]

As one of the standard dungeon masters in my group, who typically plays in homebrew settings with homebrew adventures, that's utter nonsense.

As the DM, I come up with the fundamental idea and run it by my players. If they're excited, I then take their input and develop the world based on how my idea sparks their imaginations because, at the end of the day, it is their game, too. If I am building a world, and one of then wants to play as a lizardfolk druid, then I can build it to fit that concept. They are the ones who are playing in that world, and I care about their input. To casually ignore the tastes and desires of my players in the interest of furthering my random whims would be incredibly inconsiderate.

Yes, DMs are owed respect and gratitude for taking the time to develop the adventure, but they are not owed absolute deference. Sure, setting limitations are worth respecting, and players should choose characters based off of the theme and tone of the game, but if someone runs a grab-bag game and arbitrarily forbids tieflings because they're for edgelord Mary Sues, then I'll gladly never play with them.



I understand if your critique is of DMs banning a race because they are prejudiced against what they perceive to be the kind of pcs tiefling players tend to make. But frankly that seems like a straw man argument in regards to all of the many reasons a DM wouldn't want tieflings in a game. Tieflings, dragonborn, drow etc. are very prone to disrupting various kinds of games. For example, for many 'low magic' settings, a tiefling is going to stick out like a sore thumb even if they do canonically exist. Their presence in a party will continuously upstage the other players if the DM wants to be true to the world.

It might be the players' game as well as the DM's, but it is always going to be the DM's world. A good DM will do his best to integrate their players' ideas into their world, but they have zero obligation to disrupt their world for their players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll admit to banning several races, but that's all based on the world itself.

Gnomes exist, but not in the main play area (any more). They're thought to be extinct/mythical.

Drow never existed--there's no underdark (or equivalent). I already have high elves and wood elves as separate species (although they mechanically are subraces). No need for another.

Kenku probably exist on the southern continent, but they're unknown in the area I play in. If someone goes there and finds them, I'll add them. That's what happened with hobgoblins.

My goblins are different enough that playing them makes very little sense (their intelligence scales with the density of goblins of the same tribe; a lone goblin is a smart cat, and just as mischievous).

Tritons, cat-folk (forgetting the name), and lizardmen certainly exist, but not locally.

All the "animal-hybrid" races are actually due to people (elves, usually) meddling with souls--they created humans from hobgoblins, orcs from humans + wild pigs, and kenku/tritons/etc from animal + hobgoblin. Dragonborn are the fault of humans--they forcibly merged fragments of dragon souls with human "volunteers."

The high elves of the southern continent are still engaged in this tampering, so there are lots of strange races there.

[EvilAnagram]

I understand if your critique is of DMs banning a race because they are prejudiced against what they perceive to be the kind of pcs tiefling players tend to make. But frankly that seems like a straw man argument in regards to all of the many reasons a DM wouldn't want tieflings in a game. Tieflings, dragonborn, drow etc. are very prone to disrupting various kinds of games. For example, for many 'low magic' settings, a tiefling is going to stick out like a sore thumb even if they do canonically exist. Their presence in a party will continuously upstage the other players if the DM wants to be true to the world.
It is not a straw man argument because I am specifically not opposed to race restrictions for thematic reasons or ones already present in the setting. I am opposed to arbitrary restrictions like the one in the OP, which he specifies are often based in untested prejudice.


It might be the players' game as well as the DM's, but it is always going to be the DM's world. A good DM will do his best to integrate their players' ideas into their world, but they have zero obligation to disrupt their world for their players.
I have never created a world without input from my players. Their actions create detail in the sketches I draw out.

[Akolyte01]

It is not a straw man argument because I am specifically not opposed to race restrictions for thematic reasons or ones already present in the setting. I am opposed to arbitrary restrictions like the one in the OP, which he specifies are often based in untested prejudice.
Aha I see. But I don't know that's what the OP was saying. "Prejudice", in my understanding, is just the idea that a certain race is lame and/or unsuited for the type of campaign someone wants to run.



I have never created a world without input from my players. Their actions create detail in the sketches I draw out.

That is likely a rewarding way of doing things, but not every DM operates like that, nor should they be expected to.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have never created a world without input from my players. Their actions create detail in the sketches I draw out.

That's one way, but not the only way. I have a persistent world that I run a lot of shorter (1 school year) campaigns in. Each campaign adds something to the world as it goes (and some of these things are large). This means that the world exists before the campaigns, before the players are even known.

[ZorroGames]

Dwarf: Yes
Elf: Yes
Halfling: Yes
Human: Yes
Dragonborn: Yes
Gnome: Yes
Half-Elf: Yes
Half-Orc: Yes
Tiefling: Yes
Aasimar: Yes
Firbolg: Yes
Goliath: Yes
Kenku: Yes
Lizardfolk: Yes
Tabaxi: Yes
Triton: Yes
Bugbear: Yes
Goblin: Yes
Hobgoblin: Yes
Kobold: Yes
Orc: Yes

Limiting player race out of weird prejudice or personal dislike is incredibly douchey. If a setting prohibits something, fine, but imposing your weird baggage about how other people pretend in a fantasy game is a giant red flag that someone is controlling and not fun to be around.

I have yet to meet someone who complained about a race being for X group of [undesirable] people who wasn't immensely unpleasant, and quite often need of a bath.

You some kind of toxic wizard using baseless assumptions and perverted extrapolations. You are good at it but it still is just your controlling that is the driving force behind your spleen.

Hint: it was a joke thread just for fun. Oh wait, you are so ungodly serious about this game.

Blocked. You are not worthy of further response.

[Daithi]

Everything without wings. Nothing with wings.

I'm pretty much in agreement with MrStabby.

Actually, you can have the wings, but they don't work. You can use an ASI/Feat to have working wings, but you have to maintain concentration in order to fly, and after 15 minutes you become exhausted. You can use another ASI/Feat slot to extend the flying time to 2 hours before exhaustion.

[KorvinStarmast]

Setting wise, in a generic (or djinneric) sense I like the Genasi from the EE players companion. I prefer them over many of the other mixed races since djinns/genies are fantasy tropes/archetypes/standards that go way back and I like the elemental plane thing. They might be seen as OP with some of their features, but I do like them.

For PCs: I'd say my list for choices are similar to what Pex mentioned, and his point on "cultural" variation rather than "racial" variation IMO is a good one.

To answer the OP:

Elf
Half Elf
Human
Dwarf
Genasi
--I like the elemental plane/djinni angle a lot.
--I can go with Half Orc if the " have upwards fangs" trope is removed as an assumption. (I am playing a half orc in a tier 3 campaign).

I can live without - halflings, gnomes, kender, Aaracockra.
Not a fan of drow PC. On board with the Half Elf drow variant SCAG offered up.

Maybe Aasimar, but if I do Aasimar I probably need to allow Tiefling as a reasonable alternative.
Just lose the horns. Unless someone has a really good back story on the Tieflling, though, I would rather do without Aasimar than include Tiefling, so let the Tiefling go unless we are playing Planescape.

----------------

Let monsters be monsters, but as Pex pointed out, give them culture. Make them fit into the world.

[strangebloke]

As one of the standard dungeon masters in my group, who typically plays in homebrew settings with homebrew adventures, that's utter nonsense.

As the DM, I come up with the fundamental idea and run it by my players. If they're excited, I then take their input and develop the world based on how my idea sparks their imaginations because, at the end of the day, it is their game, too. If I am building a world, and one of then wants to play as a lizardfolk druid, then I can build it to fit that concept. They are the ones who are playing in that world, and I care about their input. To casually ignore the tastes and desires of my players in the interest of furthering my random whims would be incredibly inconsiderate.

This is a serious difference from how I play. I make custom settings far in advance of a campaign, because I enjoy it, and because it means that when there is interest I can start a campaign at the drop of a hat. I run some short-term campaigns in addition to the longer ones, oftentimes in the same setting. I'm often in the position of introducing new players to the game, sometimes into short-term campaigns and sometimes into longer-term ones.

So with my longterm players who I know really well, I'll add something to a setting for them, because I trust them and because the campaign is going to be long and because I think they probably have some good ideas. Newer players I trust less. Most of the new players I've had at my table are gone after five sessions, so I'm unwilling to make major changes to my setting that the longterm folks have to keep playing in.

There's no point to establishing new setting details for a one-shot.

I'll also note that my more longterm players are way less likely to ask to add something. They'll come with a character, and some vague backstory elements, but that's about it. One of my best players usually only hands me about two sentences and a class preference. Last campaign his backstory was literally: "Another party member wronged me horribly when I was a kid, but I'm currently living under an assumed identity so they might not remember me." And because of who this was, I trusted him, and the final reveal was one of the coolest moments of RP I've ever seen. "I hated you. I've been plotting your death for months. But you're not what I expected. You've become a friend, of all things. *laughs quietly* The only reason I'm telling you thins now is because I have a lot of incredibly potent poisons and assassination tools prepared that we can use to take down <final boss>."

[2D8HP]

I'd prefer simple.

Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling.

That's it....


Change Hafling back to Hobbit, and that's the list from original D&D!

:smile:


...I have never created a world without input from my players. Their actions create detail in the sketches I draw out.


:confused:

Huh.

Well I totally have...

....and then my players have balked and I wind up slapping something together on the fly for them.



guidelines, which no one will follow...


Damn straight I won't!


1) No specific setting (Drainshift, FadeRun, Dark Grey Sun, Boreron, etc.,) but just a sandbox world


NO SANDBOX! (until I'm inspired to improv something) Off the rails they'll find burned out ruined villages with "wells" leading underground (as in my How to herd PC's, Viking kids vs. Morlocks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536663-How-to-herd-PC-s-Viking-kids-vs-Morlocks) thread)


2) You establish a once and forever list of PC races. Everything else is an NPC or does not exist. Basically you are the one and only creative “god” to establish the world of D&D.


Okay.

It begins:


Dwarf - Not really. Either a subset of human, or combine with other small folk.

Elf - Oh yes, but I'm not sure as a player "race"

Halfling - Combined with other "small folk"

Human - Yes, and to entice players, all humans get both "standard" and "variant" features, and if (like me) a player can't decide on a Feat, they may get an ASI instead.

Dragonborn - Nope

Gnome - Now we're getting to the good stuff! Forest and Rock Gnomes are combined (all the goodies, plus those of Goblins and maybe other "small folk".

Half-Elf and Half-Orc - Yeah sure. If a player wants a "special" PC from a "special family" then they can have this, as long as they don't ask me to read a back-story!

Tiefling - Maaaybe after the initial adventure

Goblin - Oh yes indeed.

Kobold - Sure, it's spelled "Goblin" and their traits are combined.

Orc - I don't even remember how this is different from Half-Orc's


Here's the basic division:


"The Gentry" - All traits of Drow, High Elves, and Wood Elves are combined, along with extra vulnerability to iron weapons. They are the main beginning foes of the PC"s.

"The small folk" - Goblins and others combined for players who want to "stretch".

"People" You may know some. Half-Elves n half-orcs, and Humans

[mephnick]

Everything without wings. Nothing with wings.

Everything with wings. Nothing without wings. A like..sky island campaign would be fun.

What would that be? Aarokocra, Winged Tieflings, Aasimar?

Probably give Dragonborn wings to round out the races a bit..

[EvilAnagram]

This is a serious difference from how I play. I make custom settings far in advance of a campaign, because I enjoy it, and because it means that when there is interest I can start a campaign at the drop of a hat. I run some short-term campaigns in addition to the longer ones, oftentimes in the same setting. I'm often in the position of introducing new players to the game, sometimes into short-term campaigns and sometimes into longer-term ones.

So with my longterm players who I know really well, I'll add something to a setting for them, because I trust them and because the campaign is going to be long and because I think they probably have some good ideas. Newer players I trust less. Most of the new players I've had at my table are gone after five sessions, so I'm unwilling to make major changes to my setting that the longterm folks have to keep playing in.

There's no point to establishing new setting details for a one-shot.

I'll also note that my more longterm players are way less likely to ask to add something. They'll come with a character, and some vague backstory elements, but that's about it. One of my best players usually only hands me about two sentences and a class preference. Last campaign his backstory was literally: "Another party member wronged me horribly when I was a kid, but I'm currently living under an assumed identity so they might not remember me." And because of who this was, I trusted him, and the final reveal was one of the coolest moments of RP I've ever seen. "I hated you. I've been plotting your death for months. But you're not what I expected. You've become a friend, of all things. *laughs quietly* The only reason I'm telling you thins now is because I have a lot of incredibly potent poisons and assassination tools prepared that we can use to take down <final boss>."

I rarely run one-shots or start campaigns at the drop of a hat. Usually, my players and I know we're starting a new campaign a month or so in advance, and we have a comprehensive session zero. I have a single ongoing campaign world, but it's a complete fantasy kitchen sink, and it intentionally has a ton of loosely sketched out space to accommodate players. Usually, I will come to my players with an idea (Sky pirates in a world where most of the land is blighted by undeath) and get ideas on how they want to approach it. Then, another six-month to three-year campaign is going, and we see where it goes.


:confused:

Huh.

Well I totally have...

....and then my players have balked and I wind up slapping something together on the fly for them.

That's another big reason I don't plan out a campaign world in too much detail before session zero. Usually, I have a few story beats and overarching themes in mind, find out what kinds of characters my players want to play, and build the game around that structure. If I don't run the game my players want to play, they have no incentive to keep coming to the table.

[Protato]

I allow for pretty much any player race. You want to be a Lawful Good half-Human, half-Gnoll Paladin? I'll allow it. A Kobold time wizard? Okay. Slime girl with anthropomorphic tiger features? Sure! Really, really friendly Thri-Kreen in a high fantasy setting? Why not?

[bc56]

It's a lot easier to say what's a no than what's allowed.

No
Anything that hasn't been printed in a book yet.
Monstrous races other than Goblin, Kobold and Hobgoblin
Gnome
Tabaxi
Firbolg
Aasimar
Drow

[Millstone85]

Maybe Aasimar, but if I do Aasimar I probably need to allow Tiefling as a reasonable alternative.
Just lose the horns. Unless someone has a really good back story on the Tieflling, though, I would rather do without Aasimar than include Tiefling, so let the Tiefling go unless we are playing Planescape.The way I see it, aasimar already include their own counterpart with the concept of a fallen aasimar. I also dislike how tieflings' fiendish traits seem to be purely cosmetic.

I would revise the lore and say that:
* an aasimar is descended from an angel, either through angel/human sex or the blessing of a human couple by an angel.
* some aasimar corrupt their celestial heritage by their actions, thereafter taking on fiendish traits.
* other aasimar are descended from a fallen angel, and may conversely reclaim their celestial heritage.
* "tiefling" is a term applied to aasimar descended from a fallen angel, and erroneously to those who fell.

If you are descended from a fiend who isn't a fallen angel, bad news, you are a cambion, and not playable.

[Tanarii]

Technically, all non-optional and non-variant PHB races.

But I strongly discourage Dragonborn, Tieflings, and to a lesser degree Half-orcs. They're not common in the campaign world, so they will stand out and get social penalties. Otoh, since it's a campaign about dungeon and wilderness adventures, not urban ones, that's not actually as big a thing as my session zero doc implies. On the gripping hand, me setting it up that way has also resulted in interesting inter-party interactions in the past.

No Volos. I mean, it didn't exist when I conceived that campaign, but I wouldn't have anyway. That's not the kind of campaign I wanted to run.

[JackPhoenix]

Humans.

...

That's it.

All right, there may be human-derivates (vampires, lycanthropes, not-Deep Ones, various corrupted/mutated variants like tieflings), but they won't necessarily be playable.

[supergoji18]

The playable races in my setting would be:

- Human
- Elf
- Half-Elf
- Dwarf
- Orc
- Half-Orc
- Goliath
- Aasimar
- Tiefling
- Genasi

The rest of the races would be npcs.

[danpit2991]

half orc is the only race worth playing EVER!!!!

[Akolyte01]

Technically, all non-optional and non-variant PHB races.

But I strongly discourage Dragonborn, Tieflings, and to a lesser degree Half-orcs. They're not common in the campaign world, so they will stand out and get social penalties. Otoh, since it's a campaign about dungeon and wilderness adventures, not urban ones, that's not actually as big a thing as my session zero doc implies. On the gripping hand, me setting it up that way has also resulted in interesting inter-party interactions in the past.

No Volos. I mean, it didn't exist when I conceived that campaign, but I wouldn't have anyway. That's not the kind of campaign I wanted to run.

I did something similar. Dragonborn and Tieflings required meeting with me to develop a backstory together, since I have specific ideas for each of them, and they are extremely rare in the part of the world the campaign started in.

I refluffed Half Orcs as full blown orcs, and culturally they are modeled more after germanic and gothic barbarian cultures than the default evil cannon fodder they are normally. Then to fill that role I introduced the Uktaur (beastmen) who were created as biological weapons who live only to raid and slaughter.

[danksteel]

Dwarf
Elf
Human
Half-Giant
- subraces based on what your giant half is (fire giant -> gets fire resistance, etc)
Hobgoblin
Planetouched
- subrace for each genasi, tiefling and aasimar.
halfling/gnome thing
- feytouched subrace for gnome-like, other subrace for savage halfling-like. Never liked tinker gnomes.


Maybe half-elf, but that could work fine as a subrace for humans or elves. Maybe lizardfolk.

[the_brazenburn]

Human, elf, dwarf, and halfling.

Then I also allow all "monstrous races", like orcs, goblinoids, kobolds, and such.

Anything from the PHB and Volo's, and also UA stuff like Minotaur with my explicit approval.

The only thing I would choose to disallow are tieflings and aasimar, but I don't because I respect player freedom and it's my personal dislike of them that would make me disallow them.

Oh, and sea elves. I made that mistake once, and it will never happen again.

Other than the things I've mentioned, anything is legal, especially if you come up with a backstory.

[hymer]

My list would be:

Dwarves (Hill & Mountain)
Elves (High & Wood)
Halflings (Lightfoot & Stout)
And a homebrew Human race.

[Beelzebubba]

There's an informal rule in college, basically stating: "In any group of guys, only one of them is allowed to wear a fedora and it to still be 'a group of guys'. If more than one of them wear them, they're now 'those Fedora guys'. We don't want to be known as 'Fedora guys.'"

Our current game is the same.

Basically, 'This campaign is 'Points of Light', small vestiges of metahuman civilization fighting against a hostile, strange, post-apocalyptic world. If you want to play a race like a Dragonborn, Tiefling, Aasimar, or the like, then you will be, for all intents and purposes, unique. You will be treated strangely by many, you will have an arc strongly influenced by that choice - rather than by politics or family or friends - and we'd like to see some really interesting role-play along with it. So, we're not disallowing it, but you'll definitely need to step up, rather than just being a mundane personality with a cool paint job, and we'll cook up something cool to go with it. For that to work, though, there can only be one or two strange characters at most in the player pool. Our campaign world story lines are weird enough that we'd start to get weirdness fatigue, so having some contrast will help the game'.

That works for now.

Our next game? Who knows. I've played a sentient Bear before. I might again.

[hymer]

I've played a sentient Bear before. I might again.
Sir Bearington? :smallbiggrin:
I think what you're saying about rare races makes a lot of sense. Not least being that if everyone is a 'rare', nobody really is all that rare.

[Ronnocius]

I don't get why people think adding a certain race is so hard to do. I will try and give an example of each exotic race and how you can include it without changing much at all.
Dragonborn: Just add a small isolated clan of dragonborn somewhere. Assume they are self-sufficient and don't trade or interact with the nearby people.
Forest Gnome: They are rare, but can be found in forests.
Rock Gnome: They live underground alongside dwarves.
Tiefling: This one is a bit harder to do. You could say tieflings live in isolated settlements, are very rare and only found as thieves and criminals in major cities, or they don't exist as a race and any tieflings are just cursed humans without more of their kind.
Aasimar: Basically the same as tieflings. They could be fairly uncommon and often serving as knights or paladins, or an aasimar PC could be a weird blessed individual and there is not a single other aasimar on the planet.
Firbolg: Firbolg clans live in forests and look after it. They might also be found amongst elves.
Goliath: Goliaths live in small clans in the mountains, rarely encountering humans.
Kenku: Kenku can be found in major cities, often operating as a criminal organization. They are tolerated because the nobility often use their talent for forgery.
Lizardfolk: They live in swamps.
Tabaxi: There is an isolated island the tabaxi live on. Sometimes they will come to the mainland in a traveling performance troupe.
Triton: If there is a sea or ocean they could live in the deepest depths. Otherwise it could be someone cursed to become a fish (maybe an ancestor murdered someone by drowning them or something).

These aren't the greatest examples, but really just because there is a kenku, tabaxi, or triton doesn't mean the group ever needs to see another member of their race.

My allowed races are everything from Player's Handbook and Volo's Guide to Monsters (including monstrous PCs, except yuan-ti who are normally prohibited, but on a case-by-case basis are allowed). Eladrin subrace from Dungeon Master's Guide is also allowed. No homebrew, generally no Unearthed Arcana or Elemental Evil stuff (but if someone really wants to I will make an exception; the only hard rule is no homebrew ever unless it is mine).