What's the optimal number of fantasy races in a tabletop RPG setting?
Too few would feel sparse, and while humans only has its place, it doesn't apply to those trying to create high fantasy feeling worlds. Too many has the opposite problem, everyone and everything feels snowflakey and random, and it doesn't feel like a cohesive setting- plus having that many races will naturally mean that each is less fleshed out.
So what's the optimal number?
Other urls found in this thread:
dffd.bay12games.com
twitter.com
3-8, the way most videogames do it. 10 max.
This. Ideally 6, as it's one more than the highest optimal party size, meaning you'll still have a race without representation.
>5
>highest optimal party size
Sure is a lot of hot opinions getting thrown around here as facts. Care to explain your viewpoint?
I use all of them. There are -never- enough weird little guys to populate villages, and you're a damn fool if you think there are.
Though, I do cut down on the overhead by making things like "fish people" include mermaids, street sharks, and a fish that has human legs and that's it. Crab people are vaguely in the same category.
After 5 things start to break down. Combat rounds begin to drag, and the temptation to split the party and therefore halve the GMs attention increases. The logic is essentially this:
1. Three people is an adequate party
2. At six players and above you can split into two or more adequate parties.
You'll note I said HIGHEST optimal party size, not THE optimal party size. I grant you that it varies by game, but (even though I don't play it) we're statistically talking about a D&D derivative, where the level of output required by the DM is fairly high making party splits a chore.
This is all obviously from a DMs perspective. I'd be curious what players think is optimal.
Humans only. Death to "humans but X", weebshit, furries and furry weebshit.
so funneh xd
Depends
Up to 4 playable, anything more breaks suspension of disbelief as far as cosmopolitan society goes
We're currently working on a game where we're looking to end up with 10 core races. More might end up in splatbooks if we get that far, but 10 seems a decent amount of variety to start with.
It's fiction. No-one gives a fuck. Use as many and as little as you like. One of my most fun campaigns was a Pathfinder game where every race but Human was banned.
I typically avoid special snowflake races, though. Allowed them in one campaign, and it was boring as fuck. The races have to be common enough that people have an affinity with them, and know how to play them with a bit of cultural background. It can be stereotypical, there's nothing really wrong with that, other than that it gets boring when people do it 5 times in a row.
But my experience is that when people use these whimsical races, they often do it for a mechanical advantage, and they just play them as humans. I say, if you want to play as a human, play as a goddamn human.
Have like 4 main races and then 4 exotic races.
I think that is a good ratio.
Then if they travel to a far away land they can meet other extraneous folk.
You can make a world feel high fantasy as fuck with humans only though.
Just because there are only humans kicking around doesn't mean you can't have magic everywhere or plenty of fantastic beasts.
>implying there can be multiple optimal values for a single variable
Except human is the mechanically best race in Pathfinder. The only races I can think of that top them are Aasimar and Samsaran, that's only for casters really.
I didn't say they were any good at powergaming. The point remains, they pick those races for a mechanical advantage and not because they're interesting to them, resulting in really boring characters.
Optimal fantasy race set-up in a table-top game isn't about numbers as much as it is about how much each race actually matters from the perspective of playing the character.
It is coincidental that a higher number of races usually means less word count for each, and thus each is not able to matter all that much.
Also, it depends on how you count variations within a single race (i.e. do you count just "dwarf" as 1, or does it count as 3 because there are mountain dwarves, hill dwarves, and stone dwarves that each have a similar origin, but significantly different culture and minor differences in game statistics) Because getting to 10+ races counting the first way is probably not giving each enough attention to be worth a shit, but getting to 10+ races counting the second way is often done right in a core-book.
Tbh I still don't understand why different flavors of dwarves are each their own race and not different cultures.
I understand your point, but I think that user is saying that depending on the group, setting, situation, etc. a different size can be better
So 3, 4 and 5 can all be the optimal value, if the situations are right
Humans can basically fit any niche ever. You should only have other races if they also can be highly varied, or if they are truly alien.
if they're highly varied they might as well be humans.
if they're truly alien, they should be unplayable.
Basically, there's no reason to have races other than humans.
Well, I don’t know.
For example, the vampires from VTM, they are also extremely varied but can do things humans really can’t.
>can be good or evil
>can be ugly or handsome
>can be an anarchist or authoritarian
>can be stealthy or not
With just enough differences to make playing them unique (a native magic style is a great way to do this) but they are varied enough to allow for every kind of character
depends on the setting.
What dou you want from the game? Is it colourful high fantasy with magic everywhere? Go with a dozen races.
Do you want old school fantasy or something more dark in tone? 4 or so might work better for you.
The group should decide for themselves, there's no definite amount for any flavour. A dark fantasy game with 12 races might work fine for your project but that depends entirely on your and your groups tastes.
VtM is cheating because there being otherkin is the point of the game.
My point was about fantasy. The best fantasy is the one where the only race is humans because other races don't bring anything to the game that cannot be done with humans.
But other races are fun
20, so you can fill out a proper random table.
No, they're pointless and, therefore, not fun.
>his random tables are just d20
weak.
But people enjoy them. You might not, but that doesn't invalidate the experiences of others.
meant
user, no. You save the d100 charts for the fun stuff, like mutations and wild magic.
People who enjoy playing out their otherkin fantasies are the lowest breed of roleplayers and deserve to be shunned out of the hobby.
There's literally no reason to play nonhumans unless you're playing in insane asylum.
>d100
W E A K
>Badwrongfun
Okay
user, please. The d10000 is for crit tables.
>not using the metamorphica
>d10000
Now we're getting there.
Sometimes there is no reason for it besides a bit of game-stuff like "Oh, those dwarves get a constitution boost, but these dwarves get a strength boost instead"
Other times the cultural differences have mechanical representation because that actually makes sense (i.e. their typical upbringing involves different lessons/activities). And for simplicity of not having to present a separate choice metric that not all races will necessarily have (like if there are a dozen different human cultures, but the faerie-folk race really only have one culture), those differences get tacked on to a choice that is already presented to the player.
I like a bunch of races. Admittedly I have a fondness for using beastfolk of many descriptions but I quite like variety and I think it works well with the setting I'm currently running where you're apt to find little communities of odd races clinging to life in unexpected nooks and crannies.
>implying there can't
You might wanna brush up on your calculus there, senpai.
>Humans only shitposters rear there ugly heads even after OP tried to deflect them
Disgusting. Nobody needs you shilling your 40k fanfiction here, please fuck off.
Is there the revised edition in a trove somewhere?
>he can’t be creative unless he’s an elf
I mean, if we are strawmaning lets go all in.
I don't really think it's a strawman to say the human only shitposters are rearing their ugly heads to shitpost in a thread that the OP specifically said wasn't about human only.
3 or 5
That's enough to fill all of the niches, yet not enough for them to feel too similar.
If you read the original post, it never said no races simply that varied or truly alien races are the only kind he uses.
Right, so human only + elder beings.
and VTM vampires, and warhammer elves, and warhammer ogres, and 40k orks
>any of those things
>utterly alien
I mean for crying out loud, one is soccer hooligans, and another is goth kids.
But Orks and Vampires can do whatever the heck they feel like, and their specific biologies shape their multiple subcultures.
My setting does 6 including humans, or 7 if you count vampires as their own race.
Rate my setting’s races:
>Human
>Borovoi
>Vodyanoi
>Rulsaka
>Domiovoi
>Kikimora
>Moroi
It seems like you're trying to make a Slavic setting, but you accidentally put human on there.
>The optimal number of players in a role playing game is 0, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or ...
user, they still act like goth kids and soccer hooligans.
And they're fucking humanoid.
What you are saying is "humans, but with powers" is utterly alien.
3-5 is the usual range given.
>You should only have other races if they also can be highly varied, or if they are truly alien.
-original post
Yeah. Highly varied or truly alien.
So no 40k orks, not VTM vampires.
As much as the setting has
You realize Orks have like infinite different subcultures, some only use choppas, some use poison, some use dakka.
Vampires can be good or evil, authoritarian or anarchist, ugly or beautiful, strong or weak or smart or dumb or quick or slow.
Those are pretty varied m8. Orks do literally anything a sentient war machine can do. Vampires are capable of anything a human is.
Yes, orks do anything a soccer hooligan can do, and vampires are capable of as much drama as a whole team of goth kids.
When someone talks about high variance and truly alien, I expect floating magnetic spheres that communicate through simon noises for highly varied, and extradimensional incursions that make faces grow in jets like run saber.
I'm going to ask here because i dont understand, what makes the fun loving small and adventurous halfling different than the fun loving small and adventurous gnome?
it's like the difference between a donkey and a mule.
Or a liger or and a tion.
The longer I play, the more I think less is more.
Even "Human+3" is pushing it. That's a lot of intelligent humanoids running about, and it's tough enough to keep them diverse and distinct within themselves as well as among one another.
I think one could reasonably run a fantasy setting with just Humans and one else. You only really need one to convey the concept of the "other" adequately.
Why is it bad for them to overlap?
I mean, I have goblins, which are like kobolds, which are like gnomes, which are like halflings, which are like gubbins fae, which are like lookaloos, which are like...
It makes knowledge checks more useful, and gives an air of uncaring mystery to your players.
Hmmm... methinks that lessening the number of races would make the races less monocultural, as it is often done in standard fantasy. Everyone thinks Dwarves as the vaguely scottish miners with grudges, that's because they have other races to take on the other cultures. But if it was just say, humans and Dwarves, you'd have to create different cultures for both to make it interesting and not boring.
Also, in-world it also kinda makes sense. IRL we have all these amazing cultures and viewpoints, and there's only humans in the setting. Adding more sapients would cause competition between the sapients for land and resources, and thus diminish the amount of cultures per race possible. Of course, if there's only one or two more of these other races, there could be enough space for everyone, and while it still reduces the amount of culture per race, the overall amount of cultures would be more than a one-race setting.
I don't usually run a single-culture, single-race.
A culture might have a bunch of weird little dudes and weird big dudes.
In my games its all based pin the setting, sometimes we do only humans others we have around 16 or so to pick from, one time we all played Dragonborn. I world say a good base line is around 7 though, not counting subraces.
I initially kitchen sink races: Anything goes for the players providing they're functional. Then, once the players decide on their races, they become the only races in the game which I build the world around. Helps give the players maximum leeway to do as they like without it feeling snowflakey in-universe.
I respect that strategy, though I still like more races to properly decorate a cantina.
I prefer less races cause then you can flesh them out more. Four or five is good for playable races. NPC only races, go bananas if you want.
>I don't really give a shit
I mean if it works for you
I do a sort of combination of bananas and this guy's
Whatever they pick is gonna be the main guys, but there's all sorts of weird shit out there.
I've had a couple of human-less campaigns as a result of this, and it worked just fine
Human-less games work great.
And if you ever feel like backing down from there, finding ancient destroyed sci-fi ass human ruins is high tier.
Playable races or just races in general?
Exactly 5.
/thread
Actually two is the optimal number. That way you can have humans and the Others, for all your allegory needs.
This is only tangentially related but I figure Veeky Forums might be good for this sort of critique. I've made a mod for Dwarf Fortress that adds some unique races to the world (you can pick and choose which ones to add though) and comes with a little text document filled with lore. I was just wondering if the race lore is actually interesting and feel the veteran grognards of this board might be able to give useful advice.
I'd argue that 5 players is enough worse than 4 to no longer be considered optimal. 3-4 players is optimal for a standard game. 5 is merely tolerable. 6 is semi-tolerable at best. 2 is... well, it's no longer really a standard game with 2 players.
What should those five be?
...
fuck man I don't know how many is too many. I think I have 8.
I have basically warhammer without chaos.
Humans, Ogres, Halflings (which are very similar, Ogres and Hobbits are just humans with a better magical aptitude). Humans are my default magical ++ race because they just click with the magic.
Wood Elves and Mountain Dwarves, regular old. Friends to humans and each other.
Beastmen (goatpeople, centaurs, lion people, rhino people furry-fucks) - these are neutral to unfriendly, to genocidal, with most humans being at least wary against them unless it's a frontier town where they're tolerated. Magic sometimes fucks up and a man-like beast is born. Over time, these form communities.
humans can mate with them but the result is always a beastman
Porks (Orks but Beastmen Pigs) - these hate and war against everyone; a blight on mankind and beastmen alike.
Ratmen (Skaven) - secretive magitech fucks that can suddenly vermintide a town/hold.
two or three at most per planet and have the main setting be a nexus between them
If its hard to find games, highest-tolerable is highest-optimal. Once something is intolerable it is inherently sub-optimal.
Io and behold.
I introduced this table to my DM when I started a campaign with a wild mage. He liked it, and we used it throughout the campaign - and still use, after our previous characters passed on to become legendary heroes.
I honestly didn't believe the character would have lived to see any reasonable level of wizardry, but he made it through. Just died 13 times during the 6 months of active adventuring.
Fun times.
>I use all of them. There are -never- enough weird little guys to populate villages, and you're a damn fool if you think there are.
This.
Playable races are another thing.
>Sure is a lot of hot opinions getting thrown around here as facts. Care to explain your viewpoint?
This is empirically proven, though, user.
Five is optimal because it's enough people to provide big hooks to the overall campaign progression, but few enough people to keep the spotlight hot.
With groups with six or more players you inevitably find yourself failing to get someone in the spotlight during the sessions and that undercuts player interest.
You can play with less than 5 players! This is fine, but it generally means the GM is doing a lot more creatively on the back end rather than just using players' work against them.
It's weird, though. Every GM has to learn this the hard way.
As a GM, I tend to prefer four. 5 is on the edge of too much for me to deal with most of the time.
Nothing wrong with this. Nobody finds their comfort zone above five, though.
yeah, I don't usually let ALL the weird little guys be playable races.
Because oftentimes they don't exist yet when they players are making characters.
Unironically depends on the setting.
More races is doable in a setting where travel between planets/planes is possible to do en masse (e.g. Conjunction of the Spheres in The Witcher), or in a setting where gods or other powerful beings straight up created multiple races (e.g. Middle Earth).
Without the above, less is more. Three is plenty and a compelling setting can be done with just humans.