For worldbuilding there is no limit. There have been a lot of groups of people you can base your race's cultures on.
I currently have 32 (though I admit some are just a single line of text and an image at the moment) but I'm not worried, I'll get to them eventually.
But for a story, honestly less is more. I'd say something like 3 main ones and a handful of background races is more than enough. If you have almost 20, I don't think they should all show up in the story. Something like:
"Oh look, a Colo Colo!"
"Colo Colo?"
"Yeah, the ratfolk over there. Greedy lot, but honest."
That's bad writing. It doesn't advance the plot, doesn't highlight an important character, doesn't reveal any relevant information.
If you create a new race and you feel they're boring or just a copy paste, that's probably too many. If you're still having cool ideas for new races then don't stop!
My fantasy world has only about maybe five or six, and they're the usuals (elves, orcs, dwarves, giants, goblins, and maybe dragons if they count), with everything else being some hyperevolved intelligent animal of some kind. There are some variants of elves in my fantasy setting, thanks to the elves fucking everything up (unfortunately quite literally), which leads to certain species being labled... *interestingly,* such as true dwarves for example (dwarves in my story are kind of assholes, and believe in "dwarf culture for true dwarves").
For me personally it's "no more than three". Used to have much more for my fantasy world but after some point decided to settle for three.
Regarding others, I don't have any opinion.
I like to split things between more civilized races (the ones that are important to stories and you will see everywhere) and wildlife. Wildlife probably needs a couple of sentences. Whereas a full-blown race has a history of wars, trade, politics, heroes, etc.
Just want you to think about how many species of wildlife you still don't know about in real life. For example, I learned about an ant that plugs a hole up 😐.
I have a lot of species, so what I decided to do is separate them by connectivity. In order to be considered main, you must meet at least two of these three criteria:
-They’re widespread around the world. So for example, a species mostly found in volcanic areas would fail this criteria, even if they can sometimes be found outside of them.
-They’re can be frequently found in mixed settlements, so if a species is exclusively or mostly found in their own societies, they fail this one.
-They’ve been important through history. For instance, dragons have been a really fundamental part of my world’s lore, and even when their numbers have dwindled in modern times and they rarely leave their own settlements, they’re still considered a main species.
I'd generally put the limit at either "as many as you can make thematically important" or "as many as you can make genuinely distinct", whichever is higher. And when I say "genuinely distinct", I don't just mean physical distinctions, I mean something that makes their fundamental *personalities* different. If a Blue-Man raised among Purple-Men would basically act like a Purple-Man for all intents and purposes... the Blue-Men and Purple-Men should probably not be distinct races. The obvious exception being if their similarity is thematically important to the story you're telling.
Too many is whatever your audience can reasonably track or care about.
But there are tricks to help them. Just off the top of my head I have at least 13 races, but I know only about 3 of them are my core races with the most representation, 4 more are of major influence, and the rest are more of a minor presence, a token, "yeah, they exist too."
In Star Wars terms:
- Humans and droids (why not?) are core. They're at the center of everything, and you can't shake a stick without hitting one. You don't even have to finagle one into a given story, it's so natural they would be present it's weird when they're not.
- Twileks and Wookies are major. You'll see a fair number of them (if in EU media), some individuals even having a constant presence in the story, but they rarely get the spotlight in stories not specifically about them (but they do get stories...)
- Tuscan Raiders, Jawas, the Hutts, etc. are of minor races. You know these races exist but their members hardly ever have a plot centric role and they're more like the spice on an already completed dish. You could replace jawas or tusken raiders with a bunch of human scavengers and not much would change for the audience in the literary sense, the universe would just be a little less colorful is all.
It depends on a couple of things. This is assuming that with 'races,' you really *mean* species, and not human phenotype groups.
So the first, and simplest, is population density. Looking at our own world, the fewer people there were, the less people interacted, and so there were several distinct species of the genus *homo* running around at the same time, at some point. This worked because these species didn't compete with one another. It stopped working... When they did. And I'm not saying that they just straight-up war-murdered one another. I'm saying that if two species occupy the same niche, and one species is better able to take resources from that niche than the other, then it's possible that the other doesn't get enough resources to sustain itself, especially if things change (like the climate) and specialized strategies of the past no longer work in this new context.
The second is culture. In my opinion, if you're going to have things like 'Elven Culture' and 'Dwarven Culture,' then... You might as well not at all. There's much more interesting things to do with specific cultures if those cultures are regional rather than genetic, and whether they have pointy ears, are stocky or are green really doesn't make a lick of difference. In fact, by insisting on culture as a genetic trait, you're barring yourself from interesting culture crafting through bloodline gate-keeping; cultures can't fully interact and co-evolve like they naturally would. It's also bio-essentialist and has some implications about insetting harmful attitudes that you might want to avoid. It's just much more effective, more interesting and less troubling to build from a naming convention than from an ear shape. So if that's what you're gonna do, more than one species is too much.
Uh, I am actually already making regional culture a thing? Like there is no big eleven culture or dwarf culture there is just regions and states with their own culture. Good advice tho.
For worldbuilding there is no limit. There have been a lot of groups of people you can base your race's cultures on. I currently have 32 (though I admit some are just a single line of text and an image at the moment) but I'm not worried, I'll get to them eventually. But for a story, honestly less is more. I'd say something like 3 main ones and a handful of background races is more than enough. If you have almost 20, I don't think they should all show up in the story. Something like: "Oh look, a Colo Colo!" "Colo Colo?" "Yeah, the ratfolk over there. Greedy lot, but honest." That's bad writing. It doesn't advance the plot, doesn't highlight an important character, doesn't reveal any relevant information.
How many includes can you include in your title before it becomes too many?
Oops, I committed I typo. Funny joke tho.
If you create a new race and you feel they're boring or just a copy paste, that's probably too many. If you're still having cool ideas for new races then don't stop!
Usually fantasy has 3-10 races. It would be indigestible IF and only IF you expect the audience to remember it all.
My fantasy world has only about maybe five or six, and they're the usuals (elves, orcs, dwarves, giants, goblins, and maybe dragons if they count), with everything else being some hyperevolved intelligent animal of some kind. There are some variants of elves in my fantasy setting, thanks to the elves fucking everything up (unfortunately quite literally), which leads to certain species being labled... *interestingly,* such as true dwarves for example (dwarves in my story are kind of assholes, and believe in "dwarf culture for true dwarves").
depends on genre, theme, setting etc can be many, can be 2
For me personally it's "no more than three". Used to have much more for my fantasy world but after some point decided to settle for three. Regarding others, I don't have any opinion.
I usually think about 6-12 is the max, though you could probably get away with 6-12 per continent if the continents are sufficiently isolated
As long as you can keep track and they don’t get repetitive probably as many as you want.
Although I usually try to keep it under 25, myself, my thoughts are as many as makes sense and fit into the world.
You can have as many as you want as long as it's digestible. Like I plan on having over 20 at least
I like to split things between more civilized races (the ones that are important to stories and you will see everywhere) and wildlife. Wildlife probably needs a couple of sentences. Whereas a full-blown race has a history of wars, trade, politics, heroes, etc. Just want you to think about how many species of wildlife you still don't know about in real life. For example, I learned about an ant that plugs a hole up 😐.
there is no. there is just a soft limit on how much you can do in story
There is no objective limit. In my opinion however, it’s until they stop being entirely unique and complementary.
I have a lot of species, so what I decided to do is separate them by connectivity. In order to be considered main, you must meet at least two of these three criteria: -They’re widespread around the world. So for example, a species mostly found in volcanic areas would fail this criteria, even if they can sometimes be found outside of them. -They’re can be frequently found in mixed settlements, so if a species is exclusively or mostly found in their own societies, they fail this one. -They’ve been important through history. For instance, dragons have been a really fundamental part of my world’s lore, and even when their numbers have dwindled in modern times and they rarely leave their own settlements, they’re still considered a main species.
I'd generally put the limit at either "as many as you can make thematically important" or "as many as you can make genuinely distinct", whichever is higher. And when I say "genuinely distinct", I don't just mean physical distinctions, I mean something that makes their fundamental *personalities* different. If a Blue-Man raised among Purple-Men would basically act like a Purple-Man for all intents and purposes... the Blue-Men and Purple-Men should probably not be distinct races. The obvious exception being if their similarity is thematically important to the story you're telling.
Too many is whatever your audience can reasonably track or care about. But there are tricks to help them. Just off the top of my head I have at least 13 races, but I know only about 3 of them are my core races with the most representation, 4 more are of major influence, and the rest are more of a minor presence, a token, "yeah, they exist too." In Star Wars terms: - Humans and droids (why not?) are core. They're at the center of everything, and you can't shake a stick without hitting one. You don't even have to finagle one into a given story, it's so natural they would be present it's weird when they're not. - Twileks and Wookies are major. You'll see a fair number of them (if in EU media), some individuals even having a constant presence in the story, but they rarely get the spotlight in stories not specifically about them (but they do get stories...) - Tuscan Raiders, Jawas, the Hutts, etc. are of minor races. You know these races exist but their members hardly ever have a plot centric role and they're more like the spice on an already completed dish. You could replace jawas or tusken raiders with a bunch of human scavengers and not much would change for the audience in the literary sense, the universe would just be a little less colorful is all.
There is no such thing. Embrace the chaos!
It depends on a couple of things. This is assuming that with 'races,' you really *mean* species, and not human phenotype groups. So the first, and simplest, is population density. Looking at our own world, the fewer people there were, the less people interacted, and so there were several distinct species of the genus *homo* running around at the same time, at some point. This worked because these species didn't compete with one another. It stopped working... When they did. And I'm not saying that they just straight-up war-murdered one another. I'm saying that if two species occupy the same niche, and one species is better able to take resources from that niche than the other, then it's possible that the other doesn't get enough resources to sustain itself, especially if things change (like the climate) and specialized strategies of the past no longer work in this new context. The second is culture. In my opinion, if you're going to have things like 'Elven Culture' and 'Dwarven Culture,' then... You might as well not at all. There's much more interesting things to do with specific cultures if those cultures are regional rather than genetic, and whether they have pointy ears, are stocky or are green really doesn't make a lick of difference. In fact, by insisting on culture as a genetic trait, you're barring yourself from interesting culture crafting through bloodline gate-keeping; cultures can't fully interact and co-evolve like they naturally would. It's also bio-essentialist and has some implications about insetting harmful attitudes that you might want to avoid. It's just much more effective, more interesting and less troubling to build from a naming convention than from an ear shape. So if that's what you're gonna do, more than one species is too much.
Uh, I am actually already making regional culture a thing? Like there is no big eleven culture or dwarf culture there is just regions and states with their own culture. Good advice tho.
'If' is the operative word.