How important is it to have tons of race options?

Newish DM here. Long story short, I want to start DMing games of DnD 5e in a custom setting, because I like worldbuilding. However a problem I keep running into while trying to world-build effectively is finding a way to make all the different races in DnD feel like they have a unique place in the world without coming off as the "kitchen-sink" or "rule-of-cool" messes that "canon" DnD settings like Faerun are. I also find that giving every race a niche kinda limits those races to their one niche. Like, why have humans who are adapted to live in the forest when elves and gnomes are already the races for that?

Anyway, I digress. For the purposes of kinda cleaning up the mess a little, I figured I'd cut the number of playable races down to like 4-6, in the vein of other games such as Dragon Age, Phantasy Star, early editions of Shadowrun, ect.

To my surprise, my players hated the idea. I joined a DnD discord and asked about it and people treated even the idea of limiting playable races to the Players Handbook options as some kind of No Fun Allowed heresy and accused me of cutting options in a super restrictive way... but I personally believe roleplay makes the character, not a stat package or being a snowflake.

Anyway... I'm not sure what I'm asking for. Advice? Are they wrong and I just have my head up my ass? Other DMs with custom settings, how have you gone about this?

Now while I'm not one of those faggots that thinks playing anything more unique than a brown haired human fighter is a "Special snowflake crutch" for "bad roleplayers" I do tend to fall on the side of limiting playable races to only a few if not solely human.

Having a lot of the races being NPC-only makes them feel more special in my opinion. Especially in a setting that isn't particularly cosmopolitan.

IMO It's better to have a few fleshed out races than 10 shallow ones. More than that, don't forget that culture defines much more than a race. Keeping that in mind you won't step into pitfall of dumb generalizations à la "All klingons are warriors", "All rodians are bounty hunters", etc.
In general, do what's reasonable for your setting. As for limiting race options, I suppose it depends on the type of campaign.

Ask the players what race they're making a character as, cut the rest. World build from there. Lets them feel like they have enough consumer choice, keeps things from getting too kitchen sink for your world building. Maybe keep 1 extra incase someone dies, but even then, they can suck it up and make a character that's the same race as someone else.

fwiw I'd be wary of that group already though if they're throwing a fit before anyone even does anything.

>To my surprise, my players hated the idea. I joined a DnD discord and asked about it and people treated even the idea of limiting playable races to the Players Handbook options as some kind of No Fun Allowed heresy and accused me of cutting options in a super restrictive way
To me, this is bullshit player entitlement. It comes from the modern mindset that the GM is subordinate to the rule books and is somehow cheating the players if he takes more authority upon himself than being a mere referee who is there to arbitrate but not modify the existing rules. With that said, the core book does set up a baseline expectation, and by shrinking the options, people feel like you're taking something away from them they've already been given. How many core races are there in 5e anyway? If you're talking about maybe limiting them to 6, that implies there are a fuckload. Or are they expecting to automatically be able to use races from noncore supplements? Because that's all kinds of ridiculous.

Anyway, a few ideas that might somewhat appease your players while still letting you tone down the proliferation of player races. One is to have all the races exist, but all but a handful be very rare, at least in the part of the world the campaign takes place in. So if somebody really wants to play one of them, they can, but it'll be like encountering a Mongolian in Scotland or some shit. That way, you can have the races, but they don't exist in large enough numbers to overcrowd the same niches as other races. Maybe there's a small enclave -- a single village or something -- of them somewhere, or maybe they are few enough in number, you just get a family here and there living among the other races.

Another option is to talk with your players and make sure to include the races they really want included. So you're not depriving a player of his ability to play X, because you can just include X. You could also maybe combine this with the first option...

>You could also maybe combine this with the first option...
...making sure that the races people really value are among the major races, while the other races still exist, but are the rare ones.

As far as the rare races go, if you want to keep every player from being a race that's exotic in that part of the world (which would be pretty weird), you could maybe let each character have one unusual thing about them, or one latitude of freedom. I don't really know what your campaign world is like, or how you intend to run the game, so I don't know what the other things could be, but being able to swap two attribute stats in a roll-down-the-line system of generation is an example. Letting somebody into an exotic class, or maybe waiving a normal class restriction of some sort would be another. Hell, you could just give characters who aren't exotic races a small XP or gold bonus, or maybe a magical trinket (maybe a one-use item like a potion) or just a contact, or something like that. If you're doing arrays, maybe they can pick their array, or they have an additional array to choose from, or they can roll twice and take the array they prefer or whatever.

Having a small number of interesting races > Having a lot of boring races
Quality over quantity, if you can write five flavours of elves and make them all very distinct and interesting go for it, but chances are you can't without dedicate a shitton of time to it so better just write one elf race.

If your players want to play weird exotic meme characters, consider that you should figure out a way to humor them. If you want a different kind of player, play a different game. AD&D folks would have no problem with that kind of restriction.
One thing you can do that usually works well is ask your players exactly what kind of characters they want to play well in advance, and then design a setting around that. That way, you can still have flavorful limited options within your world, but since the limitations are applied after the fact none of your players miss out on playing the character they want. This is also a great way to organically generate a plot and character driven setting, rather than a stereotypical newb DM railroady shitshow. Remember, you're not actually a proffesional writer, no one is going to be captivated by your setting on its own merits. Cater to your players, or find players who want what you can provide.

If the general majority of fiction can manage the build an interesting setting with just humans, then I think your setting should be perfectly adequate with however many you feel is appropriate. Anything the players want to do, they should be entirely capable of accomplishing using the races available to them

One of the things I specifically wanted to avoid was having an assload of different races of elves. Kinda like how Elder Scrolls has Altmer, Bosmer, Dwemmer, Orismer, whatever "mer" the snow elves are, Dunmer, sea elves, implications that the Khajiit might be another race of elf, ect. When you have that many different races of elves, why play anything else? Aren't humans supposed to be the majority race? Or are they just doomed to forever suck in the face of dozens of different varieties of the snowflake races?

Limit it to the races that the players want to play.

This. You have a lot of options but you have to use just what you need.

>How important is it to have tons of race options?
Very
It is a big world, and as such it is going to be inhabited by many different people.
It makes no sense for an Elf or Dward to be native to NOT!America or NOT!Asia.

Depends on the setting, moron. I've played many campaigns where the only sentient race, outside demons, dragons, and particularly smart monsters, was humans. Still some of my favorites.

That sounds pretty boring.

Why?

So basically the other thread started disagreeing with you so you came here?

You're not looking for advice. You're looking for an echo chamber. You've already decided that your players are wrong, and you are right, by using buzzwords like "snowflake" and saying garbage like "I personally believe roleplay makes the character, not a stat package"

For starters, that's objectively wrong. You have no fucking idea what roleplaying is. If your game has Dwarves that get +2 bonus with axes, and you have a player who plays generic Urist McAxebeard the dwarf carry and use an axe; guess what? That's roleplaying. Using your Tabaxi agility to sneak up behind the guard? That's roleplaying. Using your Tengu wings to fly or guide down from a tall place? That's roleplaying. Roleplaying is not solely the pursuit of shitty method acting and funny voices. If characters have the mechanical ability relevant to them, it gives them a REASON to play that character in a certain way. There is nothing more core to a roleplaying GAMES way of roleplaying.

>I joined a DnD Discord
>accused me of cutting options in a super restrictive way
Oh, so you joined a group of people who are online, actively in a community that discusses and plays in a specific game? The kind of people who have probably already played in games before and the novelty of playing an elf or dwarf may have worn off a bit? The kind of players who enjoy the game so much they think up new character builds to try just for you to tell them they're only allowed to play the most vanilla shit and you're somehow surprised or offended?

>I like worldbuilding
>Other DMs with custom settings
And this is the crux of the problem. You don't like worldbuilding. You like taking the rules of the game made by people before and barely changing the descriptions so you can have your own fun in the imagination game. Your players? They're not allowed to have fun in imagination land. Obviously only YOU are allowed to. And if anyone disagrees, they're a snowflake. Sure. Faggot.

You mean this one? Because the one we're in right now came first.

He's salty because of this thread:

/thread

And you sound like a snowflake. Have fun with that.

Imo the more interesting your game the less races you need.

>Like, why have humans who are adapted to live in the forest when elves and gnomes are already the races for that?
>but I personally believe roleplay makes the character, not a stat package or being a snowflake.

pick one

>cut the number of playable races down to like 4-6
Respectable number.

>my players hated the idea
Talk to them about it, specifically Why they hated it.
Then do this:
>Ask the players what race they're making a character as, cut [most of] the rest. World build from there.

>I joined a DnD discord and asked about it and people treated even the idea of limiting playable races to the Players Handbook options as some kind of No Fun Allowed heresy and accused me of cutting options in a super restrictive way.
>Are they wrong and I just have my head up my ass?
It is heavily dependent upon the expectations they have for the game.
If I played a Star Trek game and they only allowed Human, Vulcan, Andorian, or Kilngon, I could see a player feeling limited.
If presented as a space exploration game with 4 playable races, it seems more reasonable.

If the players are expecting wide-open, sky's-the-limit, anything-goes, fantasy-grab-bag options, then being limited to a dozen different races is limiting.

>It's better to have a few fleshed out races than 10 shallow ones. More than that, don't forget that culture defines much more than a race.
This is always true.

>Other DMs with custom settings, how have you gone about this?
I offer dozens of playable races, but I run it like >all but a handful be very rare, at least in the part of the world the campaign takes place in. So if somebody really wants to play one of them, they can, but it'll be like encountering a Mongolian in Scotland
Still cut Drow, halflings, & D&D gnomes.

>why have humans who are adapted to live in the forest when X are already the races for that?
Let's digress.
You do realize that this makes sense only from a game perspective, not a world building perspective, right? You can have multiple "forest races".
The problem comes if elves only exist in the game to be the forest race and another race does it too.
A solution is to have elves exist for other reasons instead.

it's important to realise that there's no right or wrong way to play dnd. itś your primary job as a dm to enable your players to have fun and live out their fantasies. As soon as you start deciding whats fun and not only based on your opinion, you'll lose your players fairly quickly.

don't forget that you're all playing this game together and all of you (including the dm) must be considerate of the other players wishes and playstyles.

There's no right or wrong in dnd. Personally, i like it better when races and cultures are not strictly defined. It gives my players the chance to put something from themselves in our worlds besides only their characters.

tl;dr: unclench your butthole, have fun together

>You're not looking for advice. You're looking for an echo chamber. You've already decided that your players are wrong, and you are right, by using buzzwords like "snowflake" and saying garbage like "I personally believe roleplay makes the character, not a stat package"
If you had stopped here, you would have made an insightful, solid post and not at all sounded like an assravaged tool projecting like a Drive-In movie.

Calm down Timmy.

Agreed. More is less.

They still made a point

If your character is not a snowflake, stop playing RPGs

Because unless your game is based heavily around intrigue and politics, or play a setting that is not just Medieval Europe, everyone is just going to end-up playing the same old wizard, the same old barbarian, the same old fighter, etc.

by that logic, the most interesting game would be one where you are only playing oats harvesting peassants with a -1 penalty to all stat rolls

I think the number of races available are about the story you want to tell. If you are setting up a specific story that certain races may diminish it, as a GM you should feel free to say "not this time".

Telling a story of outsiders finding a lost hold of dwarfs long thought extinct and deciphering the mysteries of it, is very potentially undermined by having a dwarf scholar in the group. There is a lot of variables in here ("I really like dwarfs, could I be one who's clan has lived in human lands for generations, so it'll be rediscovering my peoples past?" could be brilliant here), but it's about discussing it with your group.

If you want to say "The world is very tribal and races don't get on, I want everyone to play humans because it is important to highlight the xenophobia" that is your right as a storyteller. Then talk with the players about it, not everyone may want to play a game about exploring racism for example.

It is all about pitching your idea in a clear way to your players and listening to their feedback. You don't always have to change your ideas in response to the feedback but people like it when you pretend to listen to their concerns and it can sometimes actually inspire some better ideas.

Also keep in mind not every may be interested in the same things you are. Gaming groups, like any social circles, tend to involve some compromise by everyone involved.

I always thought cutting down the number of races is a sign of a lazy, uninspired, and generally bad DM
Instead of diminishing the options of your players, you should come-up with ways to include every official or semi-official race, class, or background in your setting.
The only exception should be homebrews, where the player would be the one who has to convince you how his homebrew could work in the setting (the easiest being to homebrow a playable version of an existing monster).
Don't be a lazy scrub!
Do your job!

>everyone is just going to end-up playing the same old wizard, the same old barbarian, the same old fighter, etc.
That sounds more like playing with bad players. If they're unable to play a character who isn't just a some sort of an archetype, then no amount of races will help them.
Character is always a character no matter what kind of game you're playing.

>I always thought cutting down the number of races is a sign of a lazy, uninspired, and generally bad DM
It depends, it can be. But sometimes not. See >I think the number of races available are about the story you want to tell.

>Instead of diminishing the options of your players, you should come-up with ways to include every official or semi-official race, class, or background in your setting.
That's what I did:
>I offer dozens of playable races
But Drow, halfling, and gnomes were pretty much setting dependent cultures, not races. Their narrative roles were filled by other races.

re-skins are a whole other deal
Re-skinned the Zendikar elves are creatures from Native American mythology to avoid having too many types of Elves

I see what you're getting at and understand your point and you're probably right for most D&D games. When you're homebrewing a setting to tell a specific story, I'd have to disagree.

If I write a setting where orcs are all born of elemental chaos and are inherent forces of destruction, I don't think they should be playable.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a more limited set of race options if that's what fits your setting. Not every player is going to like it, but that's true for just about anything you might try. As long as you're being up front about it, so nobody's going in with an exotic concept on the assumption of a kitchen sink setting only to get shot down, it's fine.

One thing you could consider that might make the idea more palatable to players might be to build in some different mechanical options to your races. That way, those who like a wide range of race options for mechanical reasons (as opposed to the fluff reasons of wanting to play something weird and exotic) can still get that angle without bloating your setting with superfluous races. For example, in Fantasy Craft, humans don't get any particular common benefit (like the bonus feat they get in 3.PF), but rather select a "Talent", which grants benefits comparable to a racial benefit package. In fact, human Talents are built on the same point-based design framework that the nonhuman races are in Fantasy Craft; the only difference is that human Talents don't tend to get as dramatic of stat adjustments (several nonhuman races get +3 or +4 to an attribute, and some get penalties of similar magnitude, but human Talents never get attribute bonuses or penalties bigger than 2), and of course nothing particularly exotic like darkvision or natural weapons like other races can get. But they're still full-fledged race packages, with unique and useful benefits that can make things way more interesting than just a bonus feat and some extra skill points. So for instance, you might be a Strong human, with a bonus to Str, ability to push people around with your attacks, and improved stability. Or an Educated human gets bonus to Int, extra Languages known, and huge boosts to Knowledge checks. You can even have Talents for particular human ethnicities, depending on the setting.

If your players are new too then i wpuld recommend having as many races as possible. Newbies eat that shit up

1/10, made me reply

I break down the starting area in general percentages of races. Some races don't live in start area so those races are banned [unless the player talks to me first].

Ask your players what races they want to play and make those plus humans the only races in the setting