Suggest some species!

[Cheomesh]

The lands to the east are just more of the continent I'm already on.  It will probably be heavily forested, or maybe not so.  I scrapped my "grand map" as out of date with my concept, so I'm not totally sure.  I can map the region to fit the creature, though.

I could tweak the Gnoll and call it a day, true enough.  I do agree that not all settings need non-humans, and that was my original intention with the current one; I had even contemplated using the "backgrounds" system as a sort of "sub race" format.  In truth, I just want to keep my players interested.  I am slowly building my story-telling skills and the like through DMing, but I'm still a long way off.  I am using the E6 system to try and make "culture" matter -- in regular DnD, once you hit level 7 or 8, or even before that, law and the like no longer applies to you, unless the land inexplicably has some kind of god-soldiers as its army.

M.

[Gamer Printshop]

Not to go with my Northlander Pict campaign, but I like Ogres as either a sentient player race or as the bad guys to the east. Think of the movie "The Hills Have Eyes" and you get an idea of how my ogres like to play.

On the same theme you could have hill and mountain giants as an opposing forces - in D&D both are considered the Neandrethals of the giant-kin, primitive neolithic brutes.

In the south you could also have Fey peoples - elf like, dark beings of magic...

GP

[Cheomesh]

Hm, perhaps some evil fay might be in order.  I had also half considered placing some kind of large brigand camp there.  Perhaps someone with an organized army under his control.

M.

[Superfluous Crow]

If you are going for a semi-woodland race, i don't know why, but i have an image of a race resmembling the strange eyeless monster from Pan's Labyrinth just without the eyes on their hands :p
Just a random idea; take it or leave it.

[Drizztrocks]

Indulge me for a moment while I play Devil's Advocate.

Are you sure you actually need multiple playable races? Some worlds work really well with a proliferation of bear-people, cat-people, giant-people, lizard-people, midget-people, and whatnot, and that's fine. In other settings, such things strike me as unnecessary distractions, or things that were added in just because someone felt obligated to include them.

I feel like a lot of people, especially those of us who got our start in gaming by playing D&D, tend to imitate the tropes of D&D without really thinking about it consciously, and without considering that there are other options, other possible ways to craft a setting. Are you sure this isn't what your players are doing when they insist that your world ought to have some playable nonhumans? Are you sure this isn't what you are doing yourself by making this thread? And if it turns out that you are actually subconsciously imitating vanilla D&D, does it bother you? (Hint: It doesn't necessarily have to bother you one bit.)

Pleasing players is a noble goal, and providing lots of juicy character creation options and flexibility is a great way to accomplish it. But as many other posters have already pointed out in this very thread, there are many other ways to arrange your game mechanics to provide such options besides a wide array of playable race choices.

   While this is very true, it seems that his players prefer multiple playable races, and the design of the setting {if it is a setting ment to be played with} should focus on what your PCs find most entertaining. What I would do is ask my PCs why they prefer multiple races, and change the setting depending on their answer. You could even explain to them what Luminous Crayon has said here, and see what they think of that.

[Lmns Crn]

While this is very true, it seems that his players prefer multiple playable races, and the design of the setting {if it is a setting ment to be played with} should focus on what your PCs find most entertaining. What I would do is ask my PCs why they prefer multiple races, and change the setting depending on their answer. You could even explain to them what Luminous Crayon has said here, and see what they think of that.

I guess the thing that I find most foreign is the idea of a setting tailored around the preferences of particular players. I keep forgetting these kinds of settings and groups exist. Then again, I have no regular gaming group and haven't for years-- the only players I get are those who look at my setting and say, "That looks neat; let's try it." In a way, my players are tailored around the details of a particular setting, rather than the other way around.

Fascinating! :yumm:

[LordVreeg]

While this is very true, it seems that his players prefer multiple playable races, and the design of the setting {if it is a setting ment to be played with} should focus on what your PCs find most entertaining. What I would do is ask my PCs why they prefer multiple races, and change the setting depending on their answer. You could even explain to them what Luminous Crayon has said here, and see what they think of that.

I have also found that the popularity of my campaings grew dramatically when I made everything match the setting properly,and stopped trying to write the setting or portions of the settting around the players.  while the big picture stuff was written with some of my early PC's, and while their is a lot of PC interaction with the system, the meat of Celtricia was made to match the history and the over-arching goals.  And since I did this, I have had a waiting list.

Just a counter point.

And Cheomesh, there is nothing wromg with different strains and cultural groups of humans all existing in the setting, and all the 'different races' could be different tribal and cultural humans.

[Llum]

I still think some creature (humanoid) made out of foam and lattice would be cool.

For something wood-land like maybe Twig-insect race is something, a plant people race. Maybe a race that has something to do with loam.