With demi-humans, there a few major groupings like humans, elves, dwarves, etc and numerous ethnic groups under that. With humanoids, it seems like you cannot walk ten feet without running into a whole new race of them. Many of these races are fairly one-note and become boring and predictable after a while (particularly if you constantly memorize the monster books). This is a bit too extreme for my world building to account for, so I figured I would cut down the number of races by folding the similar races into subraces to keep the same XP values/CR ratings, which also makes the existing races more diverse and less predictable. Making variants of existing monsters is a tried and true method of making new monsters, even giving superior versions like the dracomera (to the point that it displaced the chimera in some editions) or regularized templates, so why equivocate? I often run into some obscure sourcebook that introduces a fascinating race that I want to keep, so making them all into subraces accomplishes my goal the most efficiently.
If you have ever encountered the same problem, what did you do in response? Any interesting stories of monster variants you wish to share?
Having lots of humanoids in sci-fi like Star Trek or space opera like Star Wars doesn't bother me. They are clearly part of the setting and the galaxy has lots of planets on which they could evolve. So that all makes sense in-universe.
For fantasy settings, I eliminate creatures who are demi-elven half bugbear hemi-aardvark mixes. Those sorts of things annoy the shit out of me. If there is an interesting mythological element (like various kinds of water spirits or godlings) or it makes sense for the species (Elves/Aldryami in Glorantha having different races with different appearances and behaviors based on different types of trees e.g. evergreen vs deciduous) than variety is fine. Otherwise I prefer a clear vision of the setting not a kitchen sink with a bunch of species and racial additions tossed in because someone, somewhere read a book or saw a movie and felt the need to add just one more humanoid species to the mix or wanted a new card to add to the possible decks one could create.
QuoteWhat do you do if there are too many humanoids or too similar monsters?
Introduce PCs into the region. That seems to eliminate the problem pretty quickly.
Remove meaningless distinctions. Elves are elves, we don't need high elves, low elves, dark elves, light elves, forest elves, meadow elves, sea elves, lake elves, mountain elves, valley elves...
Quote from: darthfozzywig;1008113Introduce PCs into the region. That seems to eliminate the problem pretty quickly.
This.
Humans are enough of an opponent already.
We just give them funny "suits" and call them "humanoids" so we don't feel bad killing them.
=
I lean towards keeping the number of races lower but having cultural variations. As far as I'm concerned Hobbits, Pixies, Leprechauns, and Bogies are all the same race. So, kind of the opposite of what Old Geezer said but at the same time the same as what he said. I tend to like monsters as unique aberrations rather than extant species as well.
I'd be happy with a smaller set of humanoids using variations. When I used to run my college friend's home brew, I mostly used goblins and trolls, actually the game ran with most encounters drawn from a small set of creatures (goblins, trolls, ghouls, skeletons, wights, spectres, wolves, dragons, and a few other critters). D&D wound up with a large number of creatures for a couple reasons. The first reason is to provide creatures as different levels of challenge (this would have been better solved by giving creatures levels in some way) and the second, to create the unknown. I wonder how much the sense of the unknown really matters. Does it really work? The only real way to sustain that is to constantly make unique creatures, but then if creatures are one-off, it actually doesn't matter how many you have, you will use it, the PCs will kill it and it will be done, or not, in which case it may need to live in your notebook for a while, no different than a human NPC. If you still want bands of humanoids that are more consistent, then stat up each band, though maybe each band is a unique humanoid, or maybe they're all orcs with variations for each band.
Frank
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008116Remove meaningless distinctions. Elves are elves, we don't need high elves, low elves, dark elves, light elves, forest elves, meadow elves, sea elves, lake elves, mountain elves, valley elves...
Ah, you would have hated the homebrew world of my 14 year old imagination- I think I had a bazillion different types of elves. Just thinking back on it makes me embarrassed:)
I don't mind a ton of different humaniods, but it depends on the world being run.
Quote from: David Johansen;1008128I lean towards keeping the number of races lower but having cultural variations. As far as I'm concerned Hobbits, Pixies, Leprechauns, and Bogies are all the same race. So, kind of the opposite of what Old Geezer said but at the same time the same as what he said. I tend to like monsters as unique aberrations rather than extant species as well.
There's merit to this. There's no physical difference between New Yorker, Bostonian, Yankee, Nutmegger, Virginian, ect. Just cultural differences, and those don't have to be mechanical.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008116Remove meaningless distinctions. Elves are elves, we don't need high elves, low elves, dark elves, light elves, forest elves, meadow elves, sea elves, lake elves, mountain elves, valley elves...
That's when you need Talislanta... No elves! Just a ton of different humans, well maybe humans?
So an interesting question, how does Talislanta fit into this discussion? It does have a lot of essentially humans (not only does it not have elves, it doesn't really have humans either...), but the way the templates work, each type is not just a set of combat stats and special abilities, but also some degree of culture wrapped into one neat little template bundle.
Quote from: RunningLaser;1008131Ah, you would have hated the homebrew world of my 14 year old imagination- I think I had a bazillion different types of elves. Just thinking back on it makes me embarrassed:)
I don't mind a ton of different humaniods, but it depends on the world being run.
None of us should be held accountable for what we did when we were 14.
Don't use them all. Pick and choose. One can get a lot of mileage out of a limited roster of monsters. Conflating them (like the little people example above) is a good, robust, idea.
Quote from: saskganesh;1008137Don't use them all. Pick and choose. One can get a lot of mileage out of a limited roster of monsters. Conflating them (like the little people example above) is a good, robust, idea.
This, turned up to 11. There isn't a "problem" with having lots of races or humanoids from which to select. It's only a problem if you feel compelled to use more than you want, for some reason. Don't do that.
Quote from: saskganesh;1008137Don't use them all. Pick and choose. One can get a lot of mileage out of a limited roster of monsters. Conflating them (like the little people example above) is a good, robust, idea.
This. So much this. PICK & CHOOSE!
The same applies for races, subraces, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, skills, professions, etc. Just because it's in the book does not mean ALWAYS ON.
Setting comes first! It's your game, your campaign, your world -- own it! Learn to make the tough decisions early in world design so you are ready to gut up when you have to make tougher decisions (rulings) later. Cosmopolitan Stone Soup is not the default setting, and options for inspiring imagination is not publisher diktat.
Make unafraid choices already. :)
Quote from: David Johansen;1008128I lean towards keeping the number of races lower but having cultural variations. As far as I'm concerned Hobbits, Pixies, Leprechauns, and Bogies are all the same race. So, kind of the opposite of what Old Geezer said but at the same time the same as what he said. I tend to like monsters as unique aberrations rather than extant species as well.
I did something similar with goblins, gremlins, kobolds and other small, vicious humanoids and fairies. For example, kobolds are fairly diverse outside D&D. Not only are there scaly kobolds, there are furred kobolds, bald kobolds, goblin kobolds, hobbit kobolds, furred bird-legged kobolds, doggy kobolds, rodent kobolds, and even giant kobolds!
Same for the horrible rat people. Ptolus has three subraces distinguished by size. Scarred Lands has a dozen subraces with superpowers like transparent flesh or throwing lightning.
Quote from: ffilz;1008130D&D wound up with a large number of creatures for a couple reasons. The first reason is to provide creatures as different levels of challenge (this would have been better solved by giving creatures levels in some way) and the second, to create the unknown. I wonder how much the sense of the unknown really matters. Does it really work? The only real way to sustain that is to constantly make unique creatures,
Frank
The first reason has been solved by many games that scale opponents combat scores in some way. I did this in my
Beyond the Wall game. The whole range of kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, and ogres were not separate monsters. They were different sizes and shapes of the faerie creatures known as "goblyns". Some were bigger, some were smaller, some hairy, some scaly. Much inspiration derived from Brian Froud and
Labyrinth. Local villagers might call them any number of things, and I would freely mix them in encounters. Sometimes I would even give a tiny one the combat profile of a huge one or vice versa, just to keep the players on their toes. But then, I never saw a reason why all orcs should always and forever be only 1 hit dice monsters.
As for creating a sense of the unknown, attempting this through the publication of new monster manuals is a fools errand. As soon as the book is available for purchase players will get their gruby little paws on it and read it. Then no more surprise or mystery.
Quote from: DavetheLost;1008167The first reason has been solved by many games that scale opponents combat scores in some way. I did this in my Beyond the Wall game. The whole range of kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, and ogres were not separate monsters. They were different sizes and shapes of the faerie creatures known as "goblyns". Some were bigger, some were smaller, some hairy, some scaly. Much inspiration derived from Brian Froud and Labyrinth. Local villagers might call them any number of things, and I would freely mix them in encounters. Sometimes I would even give a tiny one the combat profile of a huge one or vice versa, just to keep the players on their toes. But then, I never saw a reason why all orcs should always and forever be only 1 hit dice monsters.
As for creating a sense of the unknown, attempting this through the publication of new monster manuals is a fools errand. As soon as the book is available for purchase players will get their gruby little paws on it and read it. Then no more surprise or mystery.
Yea, I think that's a good way to handle it. Allow for variation so if your game system needs creatures of different power, you simply set individual creatures at the power level you need. And if you really need mystery, then create it with variation, and like you did, either build that variation into the creature type, or create entirely new unique creatures.
But I've run plenty of games with not much mystery, or at least much mystery after players had met a given creature type. Depending on what the game is actually about, that may be fine.
Frank
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1008099With demi-humans, there a few major groupings like humans, elves, dwarves, etc and numerous ethnic groups under that.
If you have ever encountered the same problem, what did you do in response? Any interesting stories of monster variants you wish to share?
I removed all the humanoids, replaced them with just humans, and was done with it;).
Eh. There's like 20 different types of homo (er, the species that is) and that's in a world without gods and magic.
And when you look at folklore, basically every single culture or region has its own take on elves, dwarves, ogres etc
The reason that D&D has light elves, dark elves, woods elves, plains elves, sea elves, desert elves, this elves, that elves, and also for all kinds of other critters...
...is that books full of monsters sell.
Dave Duncan's world in A Man Of His Word has a bit of a different take. The races are all humans. Elves look young longer. Imps are shorter. Aesir are taller. Pixies die when they tell you their name. Stuff like that.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1008099With demi-humans, there a few major groupings like humans, elves, dwarves, etc and numerous ethnic groups under that. With humanoids, it seems like you cannot walk ten feet without running into a whole new race of them. Many of these races are fairly one-note and become boring and predictable after a while (particularly if you constantly memorize the monster books). This is a bit too extreme for my world building to account for, so I figured I would cut down the number of races by folding the similar races into subraces to keep the same XP values/CR ratings, which also makes the existing races more diverse and less predictable. Making variants of existing monsters is a tried and true method of making new monsters, even giving superior versions like the dracomera (to the point that it displaced the chimera in some editions) or regularized templates, so why equivocate? I often run into some obscure sourcebook that introduces a fascinating race that I want to keep, so making them all into subraces accomplishes my goal the most efficiently.
If you have ever encountered the same problem, what did you do in response? Any interesting stories of monster variants you wish to share?
Have the setting backdrop be a war to extinction. Genocide is your friend.
Quote from: DavetheLost;1008167Sometimes I would even give a tiny one the combat profile of a huge one or vice versa, just to keep the players on their toes. But then, I never saw a reason why all orcs should always and forever be only 1 hit dice monsters.
I liked how this is handled in 3.x and Pathfinder, just give the humanoids NPC levels to match the PCs.
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
I like subspecies.
Also, mutant versions.
Quote from: DavetheLost;1008167The first reason has been solved by many games that scale opponents combat scores in some way. I did this in my Beyond the Wall game. The whole range of kobolds, goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, and ogres were not separate monsters. They were different sizes and shapes of the faerie creatures known as "goblyns". Some were bigger, some were smaller, some hairy, some scaly. Much inspiration derived from Brian Froud and Labyrinth. Local villagers might call them any number of things, and I would freely mix them in encounters. Sometimes I would even give a tiny one the combat profile of a huge one or vice versa, just to keep the players on their toes. But then, I never saw a reason why all orcs should always and forever be only 1 hit dice monsters.
As for creating a sense of the unknown, attempting this through the publication of new monster manuals is a fools errand. As soon as the book is available for purchase players will get their gruby little paws on it and read it. Then no more surprise or mystery.
The Complete Guide to Fey did something similar. It posited that all fey fit into one four base races (hoofed
grogan, mischievous
puck, majestic
sidhe, and bestial
urchin), which give rise to the monsters seen thus far. Still, D&D has not been kind to fey by limiting them to sprites and Greek immortals, considering their diversity in mythology. Japanese fairies, or "yokai" (sp?), are very different to Western fairies. By far the least strange to Westerners would probably be the "jubokko", which a bloodsucking tree created by up-taking the blood from the soil of battlefields.
I've never had a problem with multiple races/species, to be honest.
If you have a mythical bent, then the gods created the races for whatever reason and they are just there.
The more I think about this, the more it has come to my attention that I just don't have this problem.
In fantasy games, the humanoids themselves maintain a sense of racial purity and will try to eradicate any born that they think are too far removed from the tribal norm. Variances within races are taken care of "in house" that way. If the humanoids have enough of an egalitarian nature that they allow many different races to unite together in a nation, then that makes an excellent foe for the PCs to battle.
In science fiction, many races have never been that much of a problem. The only time it becomes difficult is when the general psychology or physiology of the races clash.
Quote from: jeff37923;1008202I liked how this is handled in 3.x and Pathfinder, just give the humanoids NPC levels to match the PCs.
Palladium Fantasy may have started that. But, yes, it's hard to believe in the context of the D&D rules that anyone with access to fireball and fly would ever be scared of an orc horde made up of 1 hit die orcs.
Quote from: JeremyR;1008173Eh. There's like 20 different types of homo (er, the species that is) and that's in a world without gods and magic.
And when you look at folklore, basically every single culture or region has its own take on elves, dwarves, ogres etc
But how many variations that existed at the same time would have warranted a stat adjustment:p?
And while my culture has some of those, too, that's true. However, they're not presented in a way that suggests that using them in the same party as humans would be anything remotely resembling a good idea;).
Granted, there are exceptions, but those are best handled on a case-by-case basis.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008195The reason that D&D has light elves, dark elves, woods elves, plains elves, sea elves, desert elves, this elves, that elves, and also for all kinds of other critters...
...is that books full of monsters sell.
I've always suspected that much:).
But that's not a reason for me to use them, more like the opposite.
Quote from: Scrivener of Doom;1008314Palladium Fantasy may have started that. But, yes, it's hard to believe in the context of the D&D rules that anyone with access to fireball and fly would ever be scared of an orc horde made up of 1 hit die orcs.
Well, if that same caster doesn't have Protection from Normal Missile, he/she very well should, since every 20 orcs would score one missile hit:D!
Quote from: AsenRG;1008355(snip) Well, if that same caster doesn't have Protection from Normal Missile, he/she very well should, since every 20 orcs would score one missile hit:D!
Yep, that's why I mentioned
fly - stay out of missile range! :)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008116Remove meaningless distinctions. Elves are elves, we don't need high elves, low elves, dark elves, light elves, forest elves, meadow elves, sea elves, lake elves, mountain elves, valley elves...
More importantly we dont need the stat bonus variances that are the real reason they were created. So no we dont need Wisdom Elf and Charisma Elf and Strength Elf and... you get the picture.
Q: What do you do if there are too many humanoids or too similar monsters?
A: This question makes no sense. You simply don't use any that you don't want in your world and the "problem" never arises. Is someone requiring you to use every entry in the Monster Manual?
The D&D Players' Union. That's one of their rules. You must allow every character class published is another. Currently the union is negotiating with the owners to institute uniform, universal XP instead of play for pay.
Quote from: Bren;1008485The D&D Players' Union. That's one of their rules. You must allow every character class published is another. Currently the union is negotiating with the owners to institute uniform, universal XP instead of play for pay.
I was not aware of that...I run a non-union sweatshop...
Quote from: Dumarest;1008455Q: What do you do if there are too many humanoids or too similar monsters?
A: This question makes no sense. You simply don't use any that you don't want in your world and the "problem" never arises. Is someone requiring you to use every entry in the Monster Manual?
Pretty much this. It's just, as so many elements of "What/how/where do you game?", an
amour propre issue. You and your players can handle thirty different races? Spiffy. Want there to be eleventy different versions of "drow?" Spiffy. Prefer a homogeneous game setting? Sure, why not.
I think a lot of gamers put too much emphasis on having a ton of different monsters (or the notion that every monster must be unique), rather than making races actually interesting.
I don't think I ever used Orcs, even when I ran D&D, or Gnolls or Bugbears. I retained the Humans, Elves, Dwarfs and Halflings, largely due to player demand but the human-like bad guys, and not always bad guys, were Kobalds, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Trolls and Ogres, which gave a good range of sizes. And I gave them _levels_ so that they presented varying amounts of challenge. Only Goblins and Deep Trolls had magicians or priests with spell-like abilities, I think.
When I started to design my own system, I wanted _fewer_ species on both sides of the usual conflicts but I was convinced by my players that they wanted to be able to play the usual suspects in our next campaign and "you can always edit out things for future campaigns." They also like the range of possible foes and a GM who was going to run a campaign really wanted Giants, so I added them in.
Since then, I have run human-only campaigns with edited foe-lists but right now my campaign is infested with Elves and Dwarfs and they just arrested a Hobbbit. What are you gonna do? Players be playing.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1009084I think a lot of gamers put too much emphasis on having a ton of different monsters (or the notion that every monster must be unique), rather than making races actually interesting.
I don't think it's any different than a ton of gods with four bulletpoints about how Bunsgrabber is the God of Partying Down, and his priests all wear orange cut-off robes, and his holy city is the Fort of Lauderdale, and his alignment is Chaotic Horny. Make thirty gods like that, and all you need do is run a random table, and the players can safely ignore it all. Make THREE gods, each with a six-page writeup of doctrine, dogma, practices and prayers, and the "I only wanna Play The Game" crowd sullenly clenches their dice bags and grits their teeth.
A lot of gamers just want to play fantasy Squad Leader.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1008099With demi-humans, there a few major groupings like humans, elves, dwarves, etc and numerous ethnic groups under that. With humanoids, it seems like you cannot walk ten feet without running into a whole new race of them. Many of these races are fairly one-note and become boring and predictable after a while (particularly if you constantly memorize the monster books). This is a bit too extreme for my world building to account for, so I figured I would cut down the number of races by folding the similar races into subraces to keep the same XP values/CR ratings, which also makes the existing races more diverse and less predictable. Making variants of existing monsters is a tried and true method of making new monsters, even giving superior versions like the dracomera (to the point that it displaced the chimera in some editions) or regularized templates, so why equivocate? I often run into some obscure sourcebook that introduces a fascinating race that I want to keep, so making them all into subraces accomplishes my goal the most efficiently.
If you have ever encountered the same problem, what did you do in response? Any interesting stories of monster variants you wish to share?
First, just cut the number of species down to a number you like. There is no need to use them all. None. It's your world. You paid for the rules and content use them as you wish, don't allow them to use you. I ditched gnomes and kobolds from my D&D games decades ago to no ill effect.
One grouping I did do was make all the "goblinoids" in D&D, goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears into one species. The different monsters represent different stages of their life cycle, that is, goblins continue to grow throughout life if well fed, plus a few other things. Mechanically this works as you describe sub-races.
Another thing I do is make certain intelligent humanoids mutants of a base stock. For example, ogres are a mutant form of male orc. This way I avoid a whole separate ogre culture. Likewise Ettins are a mutant form of Hill Giant (well what I call earth giants as my giants are based on Norse mythology, I completely nixed cloud giants and storm giants...my version of a lesser Titan can fill those gaps.)
If I came across some fascinating species in a source book I'd make them a mutant or possibly a version from a parallel world.
I think you get the idea. A large part of this was motivated in my world building (started circa 1979) as I want to answer the question what the world would have looked like if all these species co-evolved, and the fewer the better. For me almost all the intelligent species except for 9 (and magic) did not exist until circa 10,000 years prior to campaign start. This way I can use Earth as a guide.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1009084I think a lot of gamers put too much emphasis on having a ton of different monsters (or the notion that every monster must be unique), rather than making races actually interesting.
Well said.
Quote from: Bren;1008108.....
For fantasy settings, I eliminate creatures who are demi-elven half bugbear hemi-aardvark mixes. Those sorts of things annoy the shit out of me.
Exactly. If you allow that then there really is only one species, the very ability to pro-create and create fertile off spring with another creature means you are a part of the same species. If you can create sterile young, such as the mule, the liger, then you are a very closely related sub-species. The whole fantasy game trope of half-this and half-that reeks of metagaming stat bonus seeking. blah.
In my campaign only humans and elves and humans and orcs can breed successfully, although their offspring are sterile. The implications of the half-elf/human disturb elves and their sense of distinctiveness from humans. The human-orc thing, well that is just chalked up to orcs being created from a base stock ala The Silmarillion. I leave it as an unanswered question then if elves and orcs can successfully breed.
QuoteOtherwise I prefer a clear vision of the setting not a kitchen sink with a bunch of species and racial additions tossed in because someone, somewhere read a book or saw a movie and felt the need to add just one more humanoid species to the mix or wanted a new card to add to the possible decks one could create.
Yes 100%.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008116Remove meaningless distinctions. Elves are elves, we don't need high elves, low elves, dark elves, light elves, forest elves, meadow elves, sea elves, lake elves, mountain elves, valley elves...
I certainly remove them from a game mechanic sense, I use these distinctions as cultural/ethnic groups. I really never liked non-human species being so culturally monolithic...although that is one thing that makes them non-human.
Quote from: Ravenswing;1009146I don't think it's any different than a ton of gods with four bulletpoints about how Bunsgrabber is the God of Partying Down, and his priests all wear orange cut-off robes, and his holy city is the Fort of Lauderdale, and his alignment is Chaotic Horny.
Now I'm curious. Why are their robes orange?
Quote from: Bren;1009275Now I'm curious. Why are their robes orange?
Because that's what the DM rolled on the Random Deity Attributes Table, keep up! (winks)
Quote from: Bren;1009275Now I'm curious. Why are their robes orange?
Because green robes would make no sense.
Yeah, I generally try to have less variety of monsters, and make that smaller list have more variations, cultures, etc.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1009084I think a lot of gamers put too much emphasis on having a ton of different monsters (or the notion that every monster must be unique), rather than making races actually interesting.
I agree monsters are overrated:).
But then I also think a lot of gamers put too much emphasis on a ton of different races, instead of making the actual cultures and the NPCs genuinely interesting;).
Quote from: AsenRG;1010064I agree monsters are overrated:).
But then I also think a lot of gamers put too much emphasis on a ton of different races, instead of making the actual cultures and the NPCs genuinely interesting;).
That's exactly what I meant by 'making them interesting'.
Quote from: AsenRG;1010064I agree monsters are overrated:).
But then I also think a lot of gamers put too much emphasis on a ton of different races, instead of making the actual cultures and the NPCs genuinely interesting;).
JBR has an entire page (http://jbr.me.uk/exo/) dedicated to pointing out that all races in science fiction (and probably fantasy) fall into one or more of just
fifty archetypes. For example, both the aliens from the
Alien movies and the sandworms from the
Dune novels fall into the "enigmoids" archetype.
I am unfamiliar with this JBR person. Is there any reason why I should become familiar with him?
I've never had much of an issue with too many or too similar monsters. I see that as stuff I can add in to the campaign however I want, so if I have 8 varieties of goblin to choose from, that means I can pick the best fit for what I need, and I can throw in some variety if I want. With PC races, I do think it gets more thorny. But it really depends on the game in question. That kind of stuff can definitely change the tone and feel of a world. Generally this hasn't been a problem for me. But when games change edition and add in new stuff, or get rid of old things, that can create problems if you have an ongoing campaign.
One-Note doesn't bother me, since it is an easy starting point to work with. You can easily build off that. In a way, I think that can be more manageable than races front-loaded with cultural complexity. Just from a practical standpoint of deploying the material in play. Not that I mind things being more complex, but I will tend to take that stuff more a la carte, because I will tend to forget things if they are buried in a race description. So the memorable stuff will tend to float to the surface.
Quote from: Bren;1011277I am unfamiliar with this JBR person. Is there any reason why I should become familiar with him?
Not that I know of. I just think the alien archetypes page is quite enlightening. I find it quite helpful for world building.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1010585That's exactly what I meant by 'making them interesting'.
But cultures don't map exactly to races, as Frost Dwarves might well have two or more different cultures:).
Heresy, I know.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1011238JBR has an entire page (http://jbr.me.uk/exo/) dedicated to pointing out that all races in science fiction (and probably fantasy) fall into one or more of just fifty archetypes. For example, both the aliens from the Alien movies and the sandworms from the Dune novels fall into the "enigmoids" archetype.
Shrug.
Depending on how general you make your classification, you can fit everything in 50 archetypes, in just 5, or in 100 or more. If that classification works for you, that's great, but my point is that I find races more boring than cultures and individuals;)!
Quote from: AsenRG;1011567But cultures don't map exactly to races, as Frost Dwarves might well have two or more different cultures:).
Heresy, I know.
Shrug.
Depending on how general you make your classification, you can fit everything in 50 archetypes, in just 5, or in 100 or more. If that classification works for you, that's great, but my point is that I find races more boring than cultures and individuals;)!
What about Arctic Elves that ride flying reindeer?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1011580What about Arctic Elves that ride flying reindeer?
They're still elves, and thus were exterminated before the campaign ever begun;)!
Quote from: AsenRG;1011567But cultures don't map exactly to races, as Frost Dwarves might well have two or more different cultures:).
Heresy, I know.
Well, I absolutely agree, and that's something I try to do as well. Two tribes of orcs, especially if separated by distance, should not be indistinguishable apart from just some different warpaint or something.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1012615Well, I absolutely agree, and that's something I try to do as well. Two tribes of orcs, especially if separated by distance, should not be indistinguishable apart from just some different warpaint or something.
Pillars of Eternity does this kinda well, one of the Dwarven cultures is strongly Inuit inspired as example.
Quote from: joriandrake;1012626Pillars of Eternity does this kinda well, one of the Dwarven cultures is strongly Inuit inspired as example.
cool.
Conversely, I always thought there were too many kinds of elves. Having many cultures is fine, but every kind of elf basically falls into one of three archetypes: urbane high elves, hippie wood elves and edgy dark elves. Outside of D&D, their skin tone and morality varies immensely: Magic: The Gathering has nazi wood elves, among other things; Warcraft has dark skinned nocturnal wood elves, psychotic high elves, psychotic sea elves, desperate morally ambiguous dark spider elves, and even blue skinned space alien elves; Warhammer and Lineage 2 have light skinned dark elves who are still really edgy; etc.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1013516Conversely, I always thought there were too many kinds of elves. Having many cultures is fine, but every kind of elf basically falls into one of three archetypes: urbane high elves, hippie wood elves and edgy dark elves. Outside of D&D, their skin tone and morality varies immensely: Magic: The Gathering has nazi wood elves, among other things; Warcraft has dark skinned nocturnal wood elves, psychotic high elves, psychotic sea elves, desperate morally ambiguous dark spider elves, and even blue skinned space alien elves; Warhammer and Lineage 2 have light skinned dark elves who are still really edgy; etc.
I really liked the snow and ghost elves. I think both of them were from Dragon.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1013516Conversely, I always thought there were too many kinds of elves. Having many cultures is fine, but every kind of elf basically falls into one of three archetypes: urbane high elves, hippie wood elves and edgy dark elves. Outside of D&D, their skin tone and morality varies immensely: Magic: The Gathering has nazi wood elves, among other things; Warcraft has dark skinned nocturnal wood elves, psychotic high elves, psychotic sea elves, desperate morally ambiguous dark spider elves, and even blue skinned space alien elves; Warhammer and Lineage 2 have light skinned dark elves who are still really edgy; etc.
Wood Elves aren't made of wood. Sea Elves aren't made of water. M'aiq still wonders about High Elves.
Quote from: Dr. Ink'n'stain;1013527Wood Elves aren't made of wood.
They are in Glorantha.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1008099With demi-humans, there a few major groupings like humans, elves, dwarves, etc and numerous ethnic groups under that. With humanoids, it seems like you cannot walk ten feet without running into a whole new race of them. Many of these races are fairly one-note and become boring and predictable after a while (particularly if you constantly memorize the monster books). This is a bit too extreme for my world building to account for, so I figured I would cut down the number of races by folding the similar races into subraces to keep the same XP values/CR ratings, which also makes the existing races more diverse and less predictable. Making variants of existing monsters is a tried and true method of making new monsters, even giving superior versions like the dracomera (to the point that it displaced the chimera in some editions) or regularized templates, so why equivocate? I often run into some obscure sourcebook that introduces a fascinating race that I want to keep, so making them all into subraces accomplishes my goal the most efficiently.
If you have ever encountered the same problem, what did you do in response? Any interesting stories of monster variants you wish to share?
You've already identified the problem. And honestly if you're building the world from scratch it's only a problem insofar as you need to decide *why* these races even exist in the first place. Having sub-races only matters if it matters to you and the world you're building.
I have no problem with sub-races, weird races, re-skins etc. as long as within the context of the setting there is a reason for them to exist, beyond - Oh wouldn't it be cool to have Tieflings??
The weird thing about modern D&D is the base assumption all these things co-exist like it's one big happy freak-show. That has always bugged me since 3e (or really since the first person asked to play a Half-orc in 1e).
If this is your world - stick to your guns on what you want from your setting. If you're just looking for cool mechanical expressions you want as flavor in your game - yeah, make them sub-divisions of established races and tie them to a particular culture and give meaning to those expressions.
If bog-standard humans from locale A have regular stats, and you want some burlier humans with higher Str/Con or whatever - write them up with reasons they have those stats. Give them cultural reasons, mechanical reasons, tie it as deeply into your game as possible so that when players have the option of playing them they feel like there's meat on the bones, stuff they can dig into - even if they're not aware of it. Rinse/repeat as needed to satisfy yourself as a GM.
When you're ready to have the PC's discover new lands - you can just follow the same formula.
Quote from: tenbones;1013559If bog-standard humans from locale A have regular stats, and you want some burlier humans with higher Str/Con or whatever - write them up with reasons they have those stats. Give them cultural reasons, mechanical reasons, tie it as deeply into your game as possible so that when players have the option of playing them they feel like there's meat on the bones, stuff they can dig into - even if they're not aware of it. Rinse/repeat as needed to satisfy yourself as a GM.
If you want to do this on the cheap, start with two piles:
A. All the races and/or cultures you want in your campaign, from the campaign's point of view--nothing mechanical.
B. All the races, sub races, half races, etc. from the rules you plan to use, with the names filed off.
Then mix and match items from A and B until you have something that is close enough. Feel free to reuse from pile B as you see fit. Or not, if that fits.
Once you have the pairs that you like well enough, give them one more pass to see if there is anything you want to tweak or replace mechanically. Put a little spit and polish on the descriptions to hide the surgery. Then toss out the unused stuff from both piles and call it a day. That's crude, but it probably gets most people at least 80% to where they want to be. It's up to you whether or not to put in some more time to fill in the holes, and how far to go.
Quote from: Bren;1013539They are in Glorantha.
Touché, although isn't calling gloranthan elves 'wood elves' a bit redundant - nevermind, they seem to have kelp, ferny and even mushroom elves...
My favourite elf trifecta has always been Tolkien elves / Pini's elves / Storm Giants with pointed ears .
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1008116Remove meaningless distinctions. Elves are elves, we don't need high elves, low elves, dark elves, light elves, forest elves, meadow elves, sea elves, lake elves, mountain elves, valley elves...
Yeah, we don't need things like European Humans, Middle Eastern Humans, African Humans, South American Humans, East Asian Humans...
Actually, you know what? I'm going to bring back a confusion I have.
In the various editions of D&D (actually, Tolkien had the High and Wood Elf distinction), most of the standard races have all had several different types, Dwarves have at least 3, some settings go up to 5-6, 3 kinds of Halfling and Gnomes, and all those Elves (sometimes less than Dwarves!) but only ONE type of Humans, no matter the cultural context, so although we have Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid expressions, they are all the same.
Why is that? (Honest question.)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1013702Yeah, we don't need things like European Humans, Middle Eastern Humans, African Humans, South American Humans, East Asian Humans...
Cheeky lil monkey!
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1013516Conversely, I always thought there were too many kinds of elves. Having many cultures is fine, but every kind of elf basically falls into one of three archetypes: urbane high elves, hippie wood elves and edgy dark elves. Outside of D&D, their skin tone and morality varies immensely: Magic: The Gathering has nazi wood elves, among other things; Warcraft has dark skinned nocturnal wood elves, psychotic high elves, psychotic sea elves, desperate morally ambiguous dark spider elves, and even blue skinned space alien elves; Warhammer and Lineage 2 have light skinned dark elves who are still really edgy; etc.
In my DCC Campaign, so far, there are:
Hipster Elves
Smug Elves
Posh Elves
Blue Elves
Shadow Elves
Pythian Knight Elves (extinct)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1013702In the various editions of D&D (actually, Tolkien had the High and Wood Elf distinction), most of the standard races have all had several different types, Dwarves have at least 3, some settings go up to 5-6, 3 kinds of Halfling and Gnomes, and all those Elves (sometimes less than Dwarves!) but only ONE type of Humans, no matter the cultural context, so although we have Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid expressions, they are all the same.
Why is that? (Honest question.)
Fear of being called racist. Easier to not give different stats to different human groups.
Mongoose OGL d20 Conan did have different human races with different stats. I believe only the Cimmerians got an INT penalty. Pretty racist. :D Admittedly Conan does consider his countrymen a bit lame.
The new 5e Adventures in Middle Earth weirdly - since this is Tolkien - avoids using 'race' at all and calls the human ethnies, plus elves, dwarves halflings etc "Cultures" - http://cubicle7.co.uk/our-games/adventures-in-middle-earth/
Quote from: Dumarest;1008455Q: What do you do if there are too many humanoids or too similar monsters?
A: This question makes no sense. You simply don't use any that you don't want in your world and the "problem" never arises. Is someone requiring you to use every entry in the Monster Manual?
Exactly -the monster books are menus, nothing more.
Quote from: Xanther;1009179First, just cut the number of species down to a number you like. There is no need to use them all. None. It's your world. You paid for the rules and content use them as you wish, don't allow them to use you. I ditched gnomes and kobolds from my D&D games decades ago to no ill effect.
One grouping I did do was make all the "goblinoids" in D&D, goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears into one species. The different monsters represent different stages of their life cycle, that is, goblins continue to grow throughout life if well fed, plus a few other things. Mechanically this works as you describe sub-races.
I did the same thing. I also folded other monsters together: in my campaign, the various hags are female ogres, trolls or giants.