Why do RPGs have different races/species?

[Rasch]

I’ve been thinking a bit about what is typically called races in most fantasy settings lately. Personally, I’d call most of these different species, but anyway: I’ve been wondering a bit about what purpose they actually serve. Do they really serve any purpose beyond a mechanical +2 to some attribute?

Different species/strange creatures have been a part of our culture for as long as we have written tradition: Elves, dwarves, trolls, centaurs, minotaurs and dragons. What is it that fascinates people so about them? Does it play directly on our desire to be different and unique?
These article talks a bit about the cultural aspect, and how it’s typically underutilized by players:
http://dungeonsmaster.com/2010/02/one-race/
http://savagelegend.com/2011/12/20/r...ing-same-cake/
The general idea seems to be that players play different races/species as humans with some slightly different attributes, skin colors, pointy ears or whatever.

I’m not looking for an explanation of races in some specific ruleset here, but more a discussion of what races really gives these games. Would you really notice if this feature was taken away?

EDIT: As the replies are coming in, this seems to be the general consensus:

Spoiler

Show

What races brings to the table in games:

• An in-universe explanation for mechanical/biological differences between characters that would have otherwise been the same: some see in the dark, some can teleport and some are extra resilient etc.
• It is fun and interesting to be something that you cannot be in real life.
• "It allows you to create differences that are more than merely cultural, and lets everyone wear a nice convenient sign suggesting what those differences are." - Red Fel
• Will give your players some expectations on how their characters will be viewed by others in that world.
• Something, something culture…

[Dimers]

Personally, I’d call most of these different species ...

Which is correct, but just try to get massive numbers of people to change a collectively-used term, even when it doesn't make sense. I have to remind myself that the point of playing a game is relaxing and having fun rather than being accurate ... which is why I say "race" for my game system with three nonhuman species and six varieties of human differentiated by ability rather than ethnicity.

I’ve been wondering a bit about what purpose they actually serve. Do they really serve any purpose beyond a mechanical +2 to some attribute?

Races can play much differently from each other, mechanically, depending on the system used. Our fellow Playgrounder Obryn points out that the traits mostly likely to make a race feel different are those with active use, not passive abilities. In D&D 4e, eladrin fighters can teleport through a battle occasionally -- other fighters don't do that, and it's a difference that's easy to see. Dwarven invokers can grit their teeth and keep fighting after a nasty wound, and other invokers can't.

When you read (or design) mechanics for a race, think about how each trait will look during play, and if it doesn't look like much, try to change it into something more active-use.

Elves, dwarves, trolls, centaurs, minotaurs and dragons. What is it that fascinates people so about them? Does it play directly on our desire to be different and unique?

Sure, there's some of that. And people like to see different cultures. They don't generally want to become a different culture themselves, though. IRL many people travel and see foreign places, but few of them decide to move permanently and leave their old lives behind. It's fun and occasionally enlightening to get a different perspective once in a while.

It's also sometimes fun to be monstrous, atavistic, amoral or freakishly weird, though again, it's not something a player may want to adopt in their day-to-day life. Being explicitly nonhuman for the duration of a game can be a good way to play that out. It's part of the reason for the success of the GTA video game series.

These articles talk a bit about the cultural aspect, and how it’s typically underutilized by players ... The general idea seems to be that players play different races/species as humans with some slightly different attributes, skin colors, pointy ears or whatever.

There are folks who just select a race for its mechanical benefits, of course. And there are many GMs who don't have a clear concept of a nonhuman race's culture or any great interest in making that race culturally different, which damps down their players' ability to partake of the culture. But I'll emphasize again that it *is* a game, not a social science experiment or a course in acting. Players already know how to be human, so if there's not much reason to be nonhuman, that's the default. And in many cases what's important to the player is the adventure or story, not the character, and there's nothing wrong with that emphasis.

I’m not looking for an explanation of races in some specific ruleset here, but more a discussion of what races really gives these games. Would you really notice if this feature was taken away?

Even just mechanically, it's nice to have more ways to differentiate character A from character B. Sure, you can roleplay them differently, but presumably you're going to do that anyway -- you can also make them feel different with race. I definitely notice when race isn't present, like in many modern-setting games or one based on the Black Company books; I instinctively look for more ways to play something original and different (as well as ways to make my character more effective).

[Aedilred]

I don't particularly like the term "race" either, although as was pointed out to me surprisingly recently, if peoples can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, as in most fantasy settings humans, orcs and elves can, if not always dwarves and other humanoids, then "race" is rather more appropriate than "species".

I incline towards relatively humanocentric settings and when RPing tend to prefer parties comprised mostly or entirely of humans or demihumans unless there's a good reason for a nonhuman to be present. I don't have anything against nonhumans per se, but I do like them to have differentiated cultures, and in the standard fantasy 'verse, that's going to present some serious barriers to integration.

I guess that's an element of it - while there is a tendency for higher-fantasy 'verses to be fairly Benetton-esque in their attitude towards diversity of cultures except in certain predefined and largely fantastic elements (dwarves vs elves; elves vs dark elves; dwarves vs orcs/goblins/ogres/giants) I feel like there's a verisimilitude issue with that given the tendency of humans (which obviously form the base standard for humanoids) to fear and hate the unfamiliar and the different. While you can work with or around that or just ignore it I find it easier to deal with if you don't have a party comprised of people of all different races and cultures from the four corners of the earth.

'Course, there is an argument to be made that fantasy worlds don't have to mirror the negative traits of the real one, but I guess my preference lies towards the grittier end of the scale, and if you want to airbrush that stuff out, having done so should be part of the point in the setting, rather than just an ongoing elephant in the room.

[Yora]

It seems to be one of the big mysteries of fantasy in general. Nonhuman people are seen very often and most people love having them, but nobody seems really have an explaination why they are there in the first place.

[Rasch]

1. Which is correct, but just try to get massive numbers of people to change a collectively-used term, even when it doesn't make sense.
(...)
2. When you read (or design) mechanics for a race, think about how each trait will look during play, and if it doesn't look like much, try to change it into something more active-use.
(...)
3. Sure, there's some of that. And people like to see different cultures. They don't generally want to become a different culture themselves, though. IRL many people travel and see foreign places, but few of them decide to move permanently and leave their old lives behind. It's fun and occasionally enlightening to get a different perspective once in a while.
(...)
4. Even just mechanically, it's nice to have more ways to differentiate character A from character B.

1. Challenge accepted.
2. That's a good tip. Thanks for sharing.
3. I think this is a good point, that reflects humans natural tendency to follow the groups socially acceptable behavior, and resist change. Though races and species have varying cultures, you regularly see one without the other. You could for example have a game with great cultural diversity, and only humans, and the other way around.
4. Agreed. At least when one is familiar enough with a game to make informed choices of the available options. Still, you don't really need races or species to add mechanical diversity.

'Course, there is an argument to be made that fantasy worlds don't have to mirror the negative traits of the real one, but I guess my preference lies towards the grittier end of the scale, and if you want to airbrush that stuff out, having done so should be part of the point in the setting, rather than just an ongoing elephant in the room.

The interesting thing is that when I've searched for this topic I am asking about, this is where many of the discussions instantly head. Some groupings of people are rejected by the handling of races within games. This is not really a path I want to steer the discussion towards though, because I feel it's relatively easy to find discussions on that elsewhere. I'm more interested in the positive sides of races than the negative. It is a very valid point though, because if this is not done well, many people could potentially be turned away by a game.

It seems to be one of the big mysteries of fantasy in general. Nonhuman people are seen very often and most people love having them, but nobody seems really have an explaination why they are there in the first place.

Very true. Then again, I've played many games that do not feature anything other than humans, without feeling worse off.

I'm not trying to say that races/species are bad or wrong here, but rather trying to cut down to the core of what they bring to the experience. Is it simply the different physical features? Is it the part of alienating the world/setting from our own world, and make it feel more fantastic?

[Red Fel]

One of the biggest advantages of using a distinct race, as opposed to merely a distinct culture, is the total package.

For example, this is Hrolfgar, mighty proud warrior from the frozen north, who kills and drinks and whores, sometimes all at once. And this is Subotai, from the eastern steppes, a skilled archer who may travel for weeks on end with only his horse for companionship. And this is Mutumba, a hunter from the southern jungles, who provides for and protects his village. They are all human, despite having different cultures. As such, there is a certain commonality between them - once they get past the cultural differences, they can relate to one another. They have reasons for fighting, things to come home to, people that matter to them, and so forth. At their cores, they're not so different.

Now let's try that again. This is Erdrick, noble swordsman from the west. He is human, lives in a castle, and is adored by his people. This is Lyrandar, elven hermit from the Sea of Trees. He has lived for centuries, rarely sees people, and is deeply attuned to nature. And this is Berthe Stonesdottr, a dwarven smith who considers a day spent without hearing anvils echoing in caves to be a day spent in terrifying silence. They are all humanoid, but they are not all human. Their physical differences are minor, but enough to evidence the cultural differences underlying them. And there are more than cultural differences. Berthe lives in caves. Lyrandar doesn't sleep. Erdrick eats beef. There are deep, profound differences between them, gulfs that cannot be breached. They can set aside those differences and be friends, of course, but these are more than mere cultural distinctions. These differences escalate when we replace Lyrandar with Xqybrgar, a tentacle-beast from the planet Callufrax 5, and Berthe with Elvixia, silver dragoness and queen of the mushroom people.

That's what having non-humans does. It allows you to create differences that are more than merely cultural, and lets everyone wear a nice convenient sign suggesting what those differences are. That's not to say, for example, that everyone from the Planet Gulbsmax is a neurophage; some may have abandoned that practice in order to find a place in society. But if you have a vampire character, it will need to feed on something, and this is a distinction that no human character will fully share (even those who feed on their victims don't do so because of a biological imperative).

[Yora]

Though I don't think there is any reason why you couldn't have incompatible cultures that are all human.
Say one is from the mountains, one from the desert, one from the forest, and one from a culture of sailors. They would have a lot greater differences than a human, an orc, and a lizardman who all live in the plains.

[Rasch]

Now let's try that again. This is Erdrick, noble swordsman from the west. He is human, lives in a castle, and is adored by his people. This is Lyrandar, elven hermit from the Sea of Trees. He has lived for centuries, rarely sees people, and is deeply attuned to nature. And this is Berthe Stonesdottr, a dwarven smith who considers a day spent without hearing anvils echoing in caves to be a day spent in terrifying silence. They are all humanoid, but they are not all human. Their physical differences are minor, but enough to evidence the cultural differences underlying them. And there are more than cultural differences. Berthe lives in caves. Lyrandar doesn't sleep. Erdrick eats beef. There are deep, profound differences between them, gulfs that cannot be breached. They can set aside those differences and be friends, of course, but these are more than mere cultural distinctions. These differences escalate when we replace Lyrandar with Xqybrgar, a tentacle-beast from the planet Callufrax 5, and Berthe with Elvixia, silver dragoness and queen of the mushroom people.

That's what having non-humans does. It allows you to create differences that are more than merely cultural, and lets everyone wear a nice convenient sign suggesting what those differences are. That's not to say, for example, that everyone from the Planet Gulbsmax is a neurophage; some may have abandoned that practice in order to find a place in society. But if you have a vampire character, it will need to feed on something, and this is a distinction that no human character will fully share (even those who feed on their victims don't do so because of a biological imperative).

I'm not sure I agree with you. Let me flip this around; Meet Erdrick (same as above), Lyrandar, a human hermit from (same as you wrote) and Berthe Stonesdottr, a human smith. Berthe and her friends lives in caves. These guys can also set aside their cultural differences and be friends. Except from the name of the race you called them, didn't you use only cultural descriptions on all of them?

I'm starting to think that the race part has very little to do with cultural differences. Yes, different races would likely have their own cultures, or subcultures at the least, but that's not what sets them apart. Come to think of it, I think a large part of it is actually the biological differences that are the most pronounced.
How would Erdrick really relate to the two others? Well, his best friend during growing up could have been a smith or nature-lover, and he can relate to that. However, what Erdrick can not relate to, is that when they are attacked in the middle of the night, the other two can see in the dark while he can't.

EDIT (Didn't see until after I posted):

Though I don't think there is any reason why you couldn't have incompatible cultures that are all human.
Say one is from the mountains, one from the desert, one from the forest, and one from a culture of sailors. They would have a lot greater differences than a human, an orc, and a lizardman who all live in the plains.

Exactly

[mephnick]

In terms of 3.5, I think they just exist so min-maxers can find an oni-spawned tiefling, or an arctic dwarf to munchkin out their stats even if the character makes no sense in the world.

That was only partially sarcastic.

I think the real reason is that "Tolkien did it." Different species were never really represented as protagonists in literature until recently. Fey and monsters certainly existed, but usually as enemies or pranksters, never as heroic forces driving the main thrust of the story.

A heroic group including elves, dwarves and men was never the standard. Just men getting through challenges posed by elves and dwarves, etc.

[Mr. Mask]

Have you ever thought it'd be fun to play a dragon? Ever pretended to be an animal as a child? Ever listened to stories about adventures in fairyland or somesuch?

Those bite at the root of it. Being a fairy or elf simply has a very foreign feeling to it. Most gamers aren't much like cowboys, but relate to cowboy characters enough that they don't get a strong sense of a foreign world and creature when we playing as one. (Even if gamers and cowboys may as well be foreign creatures from foreign worlds.)

Why is it that we say, "rawr I'm a dragon!" rather than, "rawr I am me with significantly more size and power and my breath wreaks flame!" Because a dragon embodies those things, and is a stronger narrative presentation than a bigger stronger you.

It's a little like why scifi so often has aliens in it. And really, the short answer is, "because it's interesting," and that seems reason enough.

[Red Fel]

I'm not sure I agree with you. Let me flip this around; Meet Erdrick (same as above), Lyrandar, a human hermit from (same as you wrote) and Berthe Stonesdottr, a human smith. Berthe and her friends lives in caves. These guys can also set aside their cultural differences and be friends. Except from the name of the race you called them, didn't you use only cultural descriptions on all of them?

I'm starting to think that the race part has very little to do with cultural differences. Yes, different races would likely have their own cultures, or subcultures at the least, but that's not what sets them apart. Come to think of it, I think a large part of it is actually the biological differences that are the most pronounced.
How would Erdrick really relate to the two others? Well, his best friend during growing up could have been a smith or nature-lover, and he can relate to that. However, what Erdrick can not relate to, is that when they are attacked in the middle of the night, the other two can see in the dark while he can't.

Well, part of it is cultural, as I said. But the other part is not.

In my illustration, Lyrandar is an Elf. He is extraordinarily long-lived by human standards. That's not cultural, it's biological. Erdrick's lifespan, to Lyrandar, is like the lifespan of Spot (Erdrick's faithful hunting dog) to Erdrick - fleeting. It's hard to grasp how someone so long-lived sees the world; and from Lyrandar's perspective, it's hard to understand how one so short-lived can expect to have any meaningful impact. Another example: Lyrandar does not sleep; he goes into a "trance." Again, biological. Because he does not sleep, he does not dream. How do you express the concept of "dream" to someone who doesn't even "sleep"?

I then took it a step further, and introduced a dragon and an alien. Let's go further. Xqybrgar the tentacle-beast is from Callufrax 5. The diplomats of Callufrax 5 devour the first member of any race they encounter. This is because they possess an ability to read the genetic memory of creatures they consume, thus learning the language and local custom. As a result of this biological function, they consider the consumption of members of intelligent species to be a diplomatic act. Peace treaties between Callufraxians are frequently sealed by the exchange of offspring for culinary purposes. Even humans from a cannibal culture are going to find that incredibly off-putting, at best. At worst, they will consider the consumption of a human diplomat to be an act of war.

Elvixia is a dragon. She does not die naturally; she simply ages and grows and ages and grows and becomes something akin to a physical god. There are very few beings in the world that can match her power, and she knows it. She loves humans, in the same sense that humans love puppies or think cows have adorably big eyes. She recognizes that humans are creatures with feelings and agency, but she doesn't fully view them as people; they are simply too weak, short-lived, and stupid to be considered responsible in any sense. Imagine if a four year-old child told you she was a big girl and could do what she wanted. You'd laugh, you'd pat her on the head, and you'd make sure there were no pointy things about on which she could hurt herself. That's what humans are to Elvixia. By contrast, to humans, Elvixia is a big terrifying lizard-creature that breathes death. She flies, she's smarter than their greatest minds by far, and the only reason humans can tell that she hasn't slaughtered them all out of boredom is that we amuse her. She is terrifying, fascinating, and completely alien in mentality.

Again, these are cultural differences in part, but also biological ones. Even the cultural differences stem from biological distinctions.

And also, as mentioned, part of the point is the visible label. We can assume, for example, that if we meet a Klingon, he comes from a proud warrior culture. If we met a human, we might not make that assumption. If we met a human wearing Klingon attire, perhaps we might assume he was emulating Klingons, and thus from a proud warrior culture. But what if we met a Klingon wearing a Starfleet uniform? Well, he's still probably from a proud warrior culture, although it's possible that he's a Drizz't-esque "I'm abandoning my people and full of loneliness" exception to the rule. But the convenient label is a big part of it. It's easier to say "this is a dwarf" than to say "this is a short hairy cave-dweller from a culture of craftsmanship and drinking who has a fondness for oversized axes and hammers." "Dwarf" conveniently sums up your description, assuming that the latter was an accurate description of dwarves in your setting.

[Aedilred]

I'm not sure I agree with you. Let me flip this around; Meet Erdrick (same as above), Lyrandar, a human hermit from (same as you wrote) and Berthe Stonesdottr, a human smith. Berthe and her friends lives in caves. These guys can also set aside their cultural differences and be friends. Except from the name of the race you called them, didn't you use only cultural descriptions on all of them?

I'm starting to think that the race part has very little to do with cultural differences. Yes, different races would likely have their own cultures, or subcultures at the least, but that's not what sets them apart. Come to think of it, I think a large part of it is actually the biological differences that are the most pronounced.
How would Erdrick really relate to the two others? Well, his best friend during growing up could have been a smith or nature-lover, and he can relate to that. However, what Erdrick can not relate to, is that when they are attacked in the middle of the night, the other two can see in the dark while he can't.

I think this is as a result of the development of conventional fantasy over the last ~fifty years and - in part - to do with a real-world reaction to the sort of fantasy racism I alluded to earlier (and which you understandably don't want to discuss in detail). Back when D&D started out the different races were all pretty archetypal and drew on the stuff produced by Papa Tolkien among others, for what were at the time perfectly good reasons. So dwarves lived underground, elves were ancient and mysterious and lived either in the trees or in the ancient remnants of a decaying civilisation, orcs were relentless destroyers of civilisation, and so on.

As time has worn on, and for various reasons, these stereotypes have been challenged and diluted and generally cast aside. Sometimes it's for real-world social reasons to present the orcs as misunderstood or trying to see things from their perspective or whatever (see: Order of the Stick, Goblins). Sometimes it's because people like the attributes of a given race but don't like the cultural baggage. Sometimes it's just a desire to challenge stereotype and "cliché". So now we have a million varieties of elves (and elves-lite, like the eladrin) filling every possible niche. Orcs can be anywhere from howling green barbarians to relatively functional members of society (and half-orcs, even moreso), and so on. So the "race" part of the character description without further qualification is really just an indicator of likely lifespan and ear dimensions and doesn't tell you anything deeper about the character.

[cobaltstarfire]

Why shouldn't rpgs have different races/species?

I don't care that it isn't realistic or whatever else, it's more interesting and fun to get to run around as a kobold or gnoll or something like that than it is to play a human or human like creature.

Even if I could play a human with powers and abilities I could never have in real life it just isn't as interesting to me most of the time.

So yeah, I would notice it if such a "feature" was taken away, because humans don't really ever grab my imagination in the same way that creatures do.

[Mastikator]

It seems to be one of the big mysteries of fantasy in general. Nonhuman people are seen very often and most people love having them, but nobody seems really have an explaination why they are there in the first place.

There were elves, hobbits and dwarves in Tolkien's world. People keep adding them because they're taken for granted.

[Yora]

Nobody wants humans with pointy ears. And most people don't want humanoids that are universaly superior to humans or always evil either.

The simple answer is to just have only humans. But there's probably better ways to deal with that, which maintain the presence of humanoids.

[AuraTwilight]

For the same reason magic exists. Pretending to be something that isn't real is fun.

[Honest Tiefling]

1) I assume it is easier to remove races then add them in later on into an RPG. So put in races in the RPG and if people don't like them, they can chuck it out.

2) If I wanted to see other humans, I'd leave my basement. Fantasy, implied with the name, is well, fantasy. I want something fantastical! That's why there's flying castles and dragons and goblins and stuff. I don't mean to say that historical is bad, but there's nothing wrong with inventing something new, something you cannot see without imagination.

3) The challenge. How do I make something somewhat human, but not? I am running a game with someone who is RPing a race with scent, and its been a blast incorporating that into how the character acts and why their race act slightly differently from normal humans, despite being mostly human. A part of the fun is trying to figure out what could be like a human, but isn't in some fundamental way.

[Rasch]

1) I assume it is easier to remove races then add them in later on into an RPG. So put in races in the RPG and if people don't like them, they can chuck it out.

2) If I wanted to see other humans, I'd leave my basement. Fantasy, implied with the name, is well, fantasy. I want something fantastical! That's why there's flying castles and dragons and goblins and stuff. I don't mean to say that historical is bad, but there's nothing wrong with inventing something new, something you cannot see without imagination.

3) The challenge. How do I make something somewhat human, but not? I am running a game with someone who is RPing a race with scent, and its been a blast incorporating that into how the character acts and why their race act slightly differently from normal humans, despite being mostly human. A part of the fun is trying to figure out what could be like a human, but isn't in some fundamental way.

But why do people want to play as another race when they don't want to "be" that race? People play as "humans with pointy ears". Most don't care about all the cultural stuff.
EDIT: I don't typically edit posts long after I've posted them, but everyone seems to get what I meant here completely wrong. When players choose to play as i.e. an elf, they do not actually do anything typically elven in game. They talk like everyone else, they eat the same food as everyone else, they do everything exactly like a human would. I just wanted to point this out, since everyone seems to think that I believe you need to need to have elf fantasies in real life, and are at the verge of doing plastic surgery to get pointy ears in real life. That's not what I'm trying to convey at all. It probably boils down to some of the stuff discussed here, like how it's hard for a DM to convey culture and that a lot of players are happily content with casual gaming.[/EDIT]

Thanks for all the replies guys. Just for the record, I'm not against races in games. I'm just curious of why we all like them, and what purpose they serve in the game. Understanding that, I think, could lead to "better" races/species and probably even monsters during design.

[Honest Tiefling]

I don't want to be a lady, but that doesn't mean I don't dislike stories with ladies or decide not to play as one. And I certainly don't assume things of people who like series like Breaking Bad or Dexter. We like stories of things we can sympathize, understand or empathize with, even if we do not fully get or agree with everything they do. Other races have emotions, but to such extremes or think so differently that they are similar, but different. Familiar, but also alien.

And if you're just a human with pointy ears...You've probably missed the designer's intent in 99% of cases. Maybe you should RP a character of a different race without doing that and see if you like it?

[Mr. Mask]

Rasch: Well, some people play for the shallowest part of being an elf or whichever. "I want to use bows and swords... I'll be an elf like Legolas!" but there character doesn't behave anything like Legolas or elves in general because they just thought, "bows and swords." Or they think, "elves look cool," or, "elves' racial bonuses fit my character build," or even, "humans are boring, so I'll be an elf."

Often when people want to play elves for cultural/etc. reasons, its for shallow, thematic parts of the race. They want to be the person who acts wizened by age, or sort of uptight, or superior to others. Sometimes, these themes are actually very contrary to what the elves/etc. are meant to be. Nevertheless, there's a theme that they think that their race represents, which intrigued them. They might want to make a drow because they read about Drizzt, even though they don't act like they're from drow culture (admittedly, Drizzt doesn't either).

[Segev]

In a small part inspired by thoughts similar to those raised in this discussion, I came wrote this thread on races having levels, too, with an eye towards the advancement as a "dwarf," for instance, making you more and more distinct from those who are not dwarves.

[Coidzor]

Different races and species existed in fantasy and science-fiction long before RPGs existed.* Naturally some people wanted to play as some of those.

You'll still find people occasionally wanting to find a way to translate a fantastical species from some IP or another into their favored RPG on these very boards from time to time.

So the real question becomes why are there different races and species in fiction which then becomes why are there different races and species in myths and legends(because that's at least one of the reasons why we have them in fiction) which then becomes why is the human mind what it is.

*We've got, what, 1895 for The Time Machine, 1912ish for John Carter of Mars vs the 1960s for early RPGs?

The general idea seems to be that players play different races/species as humans with some slightly different attributes, skin colors, pointy ears or whatever.

Play. Are. You have to have it be something which can actually be played by a person if it's going to be playable. And some way of running them for the GM even if they're not for the rest of the players.

This is, by necessity, going to limit our options to things we can design and use as humans.

I’m not looking for an explanation of races in some specific ruleset here, but more a discussion of what races really gives these games. Would you really notice if this feature was taken away?

Yes. A science-fiction game with only humans would have a very noticeable tone difference from a science-fiction game where there are multiple species, especially if it were a space-faring game.

It's the difference between LOTR and A Song of Ice and Fire or Deus Ex and Mass Effect. The choices you make are by definition going to shape the stories you can tell.

[Yora]

And if you're just a human with pointy ears...You've probably missed the designer's intent in 99% of cases. Maybe you should RP a character of a different race without doing that and see if you like it?

That seems to be mounting the horse from the wrong side. If human with pointy ears is doing it wrong, then what is doing it right?
What is the designers intent? That's the big question here.

[Tengu_temp]

Dwarves, elves and other common fantasy races are there because Tolkien had them. More bizarre races are there to placate people who want to feel like special snowflakes without having to put effort into their character's personality.

Only partially tongue-in-the-cheek.

[Aedilred]

1) I assume it is easier to remove races then add them in later on into an RPG. So put in races in the RPG and if people don't like them, they can chuck it out.

I tend to find it's the other way round. Once you've got something in a setting, you can only get rid of it neatly if nobody ever knew it was there in the first place. If you find there's something missing it's often easier to slot it in. There can be an issue with pretending things were always this way... but you get that either way. Just look at the issues 40K has had trying to remove the Squats and Zoats: it's taken them 25 years to fail to remove them entirely.

2) If I wanted to see other humans, I'd leave my basement. Fantasy, implied with the name, is well, fantasy. I want something fantastical! That's why there's flying castles and dragons and goblins and stuff. I don't mean to say that historical is bad, but there's nothing wrong with inventing something new, something you cannot see without imagination.

There is plenty of fantasy that's effectively human-only, though, and indeed introducing other sentient races that fill effectively human niches just leads to humans becoming more vanilla.

Dwarves, elves and other common fantasy races are there because Tolkien had them. More bizarre races are there to placate people who want to feel like special snowflakes without having to put effort into their character's personality.

Indeed.

[Rasch]

Again, thanks for all the great replies.
I've tried to gather the things we seem agree on into a list:

What races brings to the table in games:

• An in-universe explanation for mechanical/biological differences between characters that would have otherwise been the same: some see in the dark, some can teleport and some are extra resilient etc.
• It is fun and interesting to be something that you cannot be in real life.
• "It allows you to create differences that are more than merely cultural, and lets everyone wear a nice convenient sign suggesting what those differences are." - Red Fel
• Will give your players some expectations on how their characters will be viewed by others in that world.
• Something, something culture…

I'll expand this, and add it to the first post as we go along.

[Coidzor]

There is plenty of fantasy that's effectively human-only, though, and indeed introducing other sentient races that fill effectively human niches just leads to humans becoming more vanilla.

That's a case by case thing, though. Certainly people should actually use their brains when designing, but, well, humans.

As for the Squats, there's quite a bit of difference between removing them before publication and trying to retcon them out after publication. As Extra Credits says, Fail Faster.

[Terraoblivion]

Actually, does anybody have a survey of how common this actually is? Because outside of D&D, Warhammer and settings explicitly drawn from those races in their sense tend to be pretty rare in my experience. Sure there are monsters, some of them humanoid but they're distinctly more alien than that and not really meant to be playable in most cases. The naga and nezumi in Legend of the Five Rings are some of the most human-like races in settings that aren't heavily inspired by D&D and the naga are the more human of the two and they have a hivemind. It's just not something I'm really used to seeing outside of major D&D inspiration for the setting.

[Dimers]

But why do people want to play as another race when they don't want to "be" that race?

Same reason almost all cultures have come up with masks or face painting or both, and the same reason children inherently know how to play pretend: People enjoy temporarily expressing something that is not their usual self.* Same reason fiction literature and thought exercises exist: To explore beyond the real. Heck, same reason science and mathematics have progressed: Finding new ways of looking at things and searching for ways to show other people their truth.

* Go ahead, ask why people enjoy that. I'll start looking up citations to human-psych textbooks for you to read. </snark>

People play as "humans with pointy ears". Most don't care about all the cultural stuff.

I think that's overreaching. People don't just care about culture for nonhuman species, but that's true of all-human games too -- many players are interested more in what their character is doing now than what her ancestors were like over the last couple hundred years. (Understandable, given that she, not the whole culture, is their individual character.) And I'll say again that not all GMs can both imagine and convey cultures vibrant enough for a player to latch onto, making expression of culture a difficult proposition in such a circumstance.

[Dimers]

Actually, does anybody have a survey of how common this actually is? Because outside of D&D, Warhammer and settings explicitly drawn from those races in their sense tend to be pretty rare in my experience. Sure there are monsters, some of them humanoid but they're distinctly more alien than that and not really meant to be playable in most cases. The naga and nezumi in Legend of the Five Rings are some of the most human-like races in settings that aren't heavily inspired by D&D and the naga are the more human of the two and they have a hivemind. It's just not something I'm really used to seeing outside of major D&D inspiration for the setting.

Star Wars setting games, the various White Wolf monster games, many superhero games, Shadowrun, and to a degree Deadlands. (Just quickly listing the few I have any personal experience with.) I could understand the argument that Shadowrun draws from D&D/Tolkien, but not the others. Heck, each of the White Wolf games might be considered one race itself but has multiple races/species/types within it.

Oh, and adding in non-D&D CRPGs -- the main Fallout series only has humans but Fallout Tactics lets you play as a dog, deathclaw, ghoul or robot.