• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General How many Races it too much?

How many races are too many for your world?

  • 1-2 I am a minimalist.

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • 3-4

    Votes: 6 5.8%
  • 5-6

    Votes: 14 13.5%
  • 7-8

    Votes: 20 19.2%
  • 9-10 I think the PHB is the sweet spot.

    Votes: 14 13.5%
  • 11-12

    Votes: 5 4.8%
  • 13-14

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 15-16

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • 17+ Bring them all in!

    Votes: 40 38.5%


log in or register to remove this ad




Cobalt Meridian

Explorer
Supporter
Typically, I allow my players to pick from a choice of 6 races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Tiefling and Goliath). This list was chosen with the player input so I know that there was demand for these.

There's also about half a dozen non-PC races that they might interact with (Orc, Goblin, Gnoll, Hobgoblin, Minotaur, Yuan-Ti). Beyond that - in continent the approximate size of Europe - I would have trouble carving out enough space for a race to be viable.

I have no objection to the other races, it's just that if they appeared they would be unique rather than from part of a settled civilisation.

My next campaign will allow the players to choose from a selection of Yuan-ti, Dragonborn, Tortle, Aarakocra, Hobgoblin and Tabaxi only (no Humans).

Basically I've found that giving players a choice of one race from about 6 works well. I can justify the existence of civilisations of this many races and it gives players enough choices without overwhelming new players.
 

delericho

Legend
5-9 playable races is probably about the right number. It doesn't need to be the same set each time.

Overall races would depend on the setting and the campaign overall, ranging from including only the ones the players chose for their PCs (or, potentially, even fewer) through to an infinite number (Planescape, Spelljammer, etc).
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Because I am a DM that enjoys working with character backgrounds and having occasional adventures that deal with and impact the PCs by who they are and where they come from... for me it's not the number of races in the game so much as the number of difference areas that the PCs all come from. If there are three PCs that are all different races but all grew up together in the same village, that's great. Because I can create adventures dealing with that village that import and will impact all three characters together. But if I have 7 PCs, all of whom come from varied places, then the odds of getting to everyone's backstories is greatly lessened. Now granted, some of my players couldn't care less about their backstories so I don't need to go out of my way for them... but I still like it when I can at least give them the occasional story spotlight.
 

toucanbuzz

No rule is inviolate
I feel like you can easily explain why by just saying "story purposes".
That's what we agreed to when I ran Curse of Strahd. To fit a more gothic theme, we opted for Human and no more than one of elf, dwarf, or half-elf. It felt more immersive for us, especially given Barovia was almost exclusively human (with a smattering of dying elves), than throwing in a dragonborn or tiefling or even jolly gnomes. Those would fit better in another story.
 

BookTenTiger

He / Him
I'm realizing in this thread and others that I just consider race / lineage differently in my campaigns. I think I use different races for storytelling purposes, not world-building purposes.

So the characters might find a family of Loxodons living in town, because I want some elephant people for this story. I used to care about how they maintained a population of Loxodons, where they came from, etc, but these days I just don't. If I want there to be some elephant people because it fits the image or theme of the story, I'll plop them in.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top