What do you feel is the minimum for race options of a setting?

[TyGuy]

5e launched with just 9 races. That has quadrupled to 39 published races now. Sometimes it feels like there's an expectation from certain players that everything should be available. I also know some players that have archetypes they can't deviate from.

So what do you think is the bare minimum(s) for a new setting? Is it more important to hit the main archetypes (intelligent, big brute, small agile, etc.), or to have a minimum number for size of option pool?

[MaxWilson]

Minimum? One. If you want to run an all dwarves campaign setting, or even one where humans exist but all PCs must be dwarves from the same hometown as part of the campaign premise, knock yourself out. It's fine, as long as you announce the premise up front when recruiting players.

To me, having lots of racial choices is not an important aspect of play. "Humans only" would not be a turnoff.

[GeoffWatson]

One.

There are plenty of games and settings where "Human" is the only race available.

[Warder]

I'll say one as well. In fact, a narrow focus tends to intrigue me more than "anything goes", it shows the DM has a solid idea for their setting. Which isn't to say kitchen sink settings are bad, mind, but to me restrictions in character creation are just as narratively compelling as what's allowed.

[CheddarChampion]

Theoretically you could have a setting where all humanoids are genetically unique, but I don't know if that counts as zero races or infinite races.

[Unoriginal]

One.[/QUOTE

Agreed.

[QUOTE=GeoffWatson;24852394]
There are plenty of games and settings where "Human" is the only race available.

Only race doesn't have to be Human, though. Could be Halflings. Or Lizardfolks.

[GiantOctopodes]

5e launched with just 9 races. That has quadrupled to 39 published races now. Sometimes it feels like there's an expectation from certain players that everything should be available. I also know some players that have archetypes they can't deviate from.

So what do you think is the bare minimum(s) for a new setting? Is it more important to hit the main archetypes (intelligent, big brute, small agile, etc.), or to have a minimum number for size of option pool?

That's on you to set expectations properly. IMHO it's unwise and dangerous to Ever let the expectation that all splat is acceptable unless indicated otherwise stand. There's just too much potential for power creep, broken things, and poorly tested combos. If you allow that to be the expectation, then what will happen in my experience is players will choose things that end up poorly, and then the conversation with them about taking it away or modifying it will be much more difficult and painful than it would have been had you set the expectations properly in the first place. Frankly I don't think I need to provide any examples, both because I don't have any personal ones from 5e (expectations were set long ago :smallsmile: ) but also because I'm sure folks can imagine that scenario easily enough.

My recommendation? Set the expectations as follows by default: All core (PHB) stuff is on the table and available unless specified otherwise. All splat (everything else) is impermissible unless approved on a case by case basis.

That way when a player comes to you about taking say Elven Archery, you can evaluate it in the context of their specific character and decide if it would or would not be a problem. Plus, if you decide wrong, and find that over the next few sessions they're taking out 75% of the enemies now and the other players are half-jokingly grumbling about how useless they feel, it's a Lot easier to say hey, I was wrong and should not have approved that, let's fix it. I've had that standard since 3.5, and not once has a player had an issue with it. If someone does ask you why, as my players did when I introduced that expectation, just say honestly that it's because you can't possibly review every piece of splat that comes out as it comes out and fairly and objectively evaluate it before it might come up in a game, and part of your job is to balance the game so it's fun for everyone. Remind them that they can always just come to you and ask, and it would be surprising to me if that was not the end of that conversation.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Going forward, I may well not be allowing any races in my games at all and instead allowing only custom lineages from Tasha's. That way, I can have whatever races I want in my world whether published or not (and not having to make up stats for them if not).

[LordCdrMilitant]

5e launched with just 9 races. That has quadrupled to 39 published races now. Sometimes it feels like there's an expectation from certain players that everything should be available. I also know some players that have archetypes they can't deviate from.

So what do you think is the bare minimum(s) for a new setting? Is it more important to hit the main archetypes (intelligent, big brute, small agile, etc.), or to have a minimum number for size of option pool?

1.

While it technically doesn't need to be human by fluff, it should be mechanically human, [flexible enough to excel at anything]

[LordShade]

5e launched with just 9 races. That has quadrupled to 39 published races now. Sometimes it feels like there's an expectation from certain players that everything should be available. I also know some players that have archetypes they can't deviate from.

So what do you think is the bare minimum(s) for a new setting? Is it more important to hit the main archetypes (intelligent, big brute, small agile, etc.), or to have a minimum number for size of option pool?

2nd Edition AD&D had more than 200. That said, the bare minimum is 1. In 2e we ran a dwarf-only campaign. It was fun.

@LordCdr: I don't think it has to be mechanically flexible. In 2e, dwarves couldn't be mages and had extreme difficulty using arcane magic items. The DM just has to design the a campaign in a way that the players have a chance to succeed even if they are missing something a party would normally have.

[kingcheesepants]

Going forward, I may well not be allowing any races in my games at all and instead allowing only custom lineages from Tasha's. That way, I can have whatever races I want in my world whether published or not (and not having to make up stats for them if not).

That seems like a pretty simple way to ensure balance while allowing for diversity if you're worried about something being over or under powered. In general as both a player and a DM I love having all the options open. But there are some races (Yuan-ti, Satyr, etc) that are just a bit OP compared to others and you might not have the time or energy to figure out which are fine and which aren't for your campaign. Not to mention if you have a specific theme or setting you're thinking of.

[2D8HP]

One, two, or three.

As I've said before:

If you were putting together the race list for Player Characters, and were told you needed to have 5, in addition to humans[...]


Five seems like way too many!


I'd try to follow the scheme I detailed in a previous thread:


[...]
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



So from that and the O.P.'s requirements there's:

Humans,

Goblins,

Half Elves,

Orcs,

Tieflings (with rare players),

Eladrin.

Though truthfully just humans and goblins could work.

[Luccan]

I'd say one is all that's required for a game, but for settings I'd go for a minimum of two distinct playable groups. I think this can work just fine with subraces instead of full races, but given the type of game D&D is, I think you want at least one "default" and one "alternate". Though at this point I'd say D&D as a baseline has anywhere between 4-7 "defaults".

Oh, and you should feel free to ban any races that don't fit your setting, in particular those tied very closely with other settings. I like leaving all options open but I've been having a really hard time dropping in Vedalken, for instance.

[XmonkTad]

In all the games I've DM'ed I have never disallowed any races, but really you only need one playable race to make the game work. It'll still feel like a fantasy world if you have the other ones running around, but limiting player options down in this one domain isn't a big deal. Limiting classes down to one would be pretty different though.

[Kane0]

One.

For example, i’m looking at an adventure set in Bytopia. As such Gnomes are pretty much the standard and everything else is am exception.

[Mr Adventurer]

I was going to say "one", but then I remembered that you could go the other way by only having the Tasha Custom Lineage - so technically, zero.

[MoiMagnus]

Even one is more than needed. Zero works too.
(And by zero, I mean that you get zero bonuses from race, except knowing how to talk the local language)
Though I'm not sure why a DM would chose that over giving SHuman to everyone.



Only race doesn't have to be Human, though. Could be Halflings. Or Lizardfolks.

Though if you chose only one race which is not human (and do not use Tasha's rules), you are creating a slight unbalance between available classes. IMO nothing significant enough to cause real balance issues, but still something that might bother some players.

[KorvinStarmast]

One.

There are plenty of games and settings where "Human" is the only race available. Yep.

That's on you to set expectations properly. IMHO it's unwise and dangerous to Ever let the expectation that all splat is acceptable unless indicated otherwise stand. I think making all elves NPCs would be a good place to start. :smallsmile:

Going forward, I may well not be allowing any races in my games at all and instead allowing only custom lineages from Tasha's. That way, I can have whatever races I want in my world whether published or not (and not having to make up stats for them if not). That's not a bad idea; but if one of your players want to be a gnome, then what?
In 2e we ran a dwarf-only campaign. It was fun. One of the first dungeon crawls I was ever in was an all dwarf group. Original, three little books campaign. (And lethal as all get out).

Oh, and you should feel free to ban any races that don't fit your setting, in particular those tied very closely with other settings. Yep.

I was going to say "one", but then I remembered that you could go the other way by only having the Tasha Custom Lineage - so technically, zero. yeah, if you have experienced players, I think that "this race has no name" concept could be a hoot.

[Mr Adventurer]

yeah, if you have experienced players, I think that "this race has no name" concept could be a hoot.

I actually meant "there are no races pre-established in the setting, but players can build their own which become part of the setting". So, none to start but no upper bound for players as they start creating.

[LordCdrMilitant]

2nd Edition AD&D had more than 200. That said, the bare minimum is 1. In 2e we ran a dwarf-only campaign. It was fun.

@LordCdr: I don't think it has to be mechanically flexible. In 2e, dwarves couldn't be mages and had extreme difficulty using arcane magic items. The DM just has to design the a campaign in a way that the players have a chance to succeed even if they are missing something a party would normally have.

It has nothing to do with the GM's game difficulty. The GM should always be taking into account what the party has at their disposal when planning adventures, tailoring the game to them, and there should not be a requirement for a player to play a build or role they don't want to to meet some idealized notion of a party consist.


However, if you don't permit sufficient flexibility [technically, you don't actually have to be good at everything, only equally capable], then you wind up with one or two optimal builds and every other one strongly disincentivized.
And then, either you will end up with some players being mechanically advantaged over others which will make for an un-fun time for them, or you will wind up with everybody playing the same character and some players being unhappy with what they can do mechanically.
Race is mostly flavor, but class is mechanics, and mechanically the game should present a sufficiently diverse set of viable options to engage all players.

From a thematic perspective, you are always presenting the world through the eyes of the players' characters with them as the benchmark. The game is about them. As such, if they're all dwarves, you want to set your mechanical benchmarks to denote what differentiates them from each other, and dwarves would be the "default" generic flexible characteristics.




I've actually run a game for a party of all fighters, and played in a game of a party of all paladins. The all fighters game was actually pretty good, there's a lot of build diversity in the fighter class that can achieve a minimum standard of mechanical viability [also, there was no plan to be an all fighters game, all the players just turned up with fighters]. The all paladins game was also fun, but shorter lived because crusader jokes got old after a while and there wasn't quite enough mechanical and thematic diversity between players to carry the game for more than a joke.

[Trask]

Not having a lot of races (or even any except just 1 choice) doesn't really bother me at all, as long as the DM has a reason for it. It might even be an exciting idea that sparks creativity.

[MaxWilson]

Though if you chose only one race which is not human (and do not use Tasha's rules), you are creating a slight unbalance between available classes. IMO nothing significant enough to cause real balance issues, but still something that might bother some players.

True, but counterpoint: any campaign you create will have a certain monster distribution and encounter type distribution which will almost inevitably favor some classes over others. That's just the nature of the game--not all classes are equally good in every campaign.