Is it better to have a party full of monster races with a single normal character (human, elf, etc.) trying to herd them around and keep them out of trouble, or a mostly normal party with a single monster character as a mascot or comic relief?
Three monsters, one robot.
>>53760540
The ultimate aesthetic party composition takes setting demographics and specific races into account.
>>53761032
>Sorry, Anon, humans make up 80% of the population, our party has to be 80% human, so you can't play a non-human.
>Sorry, Anon, rural farmers make up 70% of the population, so your character must be a farmer.
>Sorry, Anon, women make up 50% of the population, so your character must be female.
>>53760540
>The party is a ringmaster with an entourage of elephants, tigers, bears, and other monsters.
>>53761032
An unusual job calls for an unusual team anon, what can I say?
>>53761096
Women usually take 55-65% in pre-modern societies due to boys having higher child mortality rates.
I think it also depends on party size
Party of three: One Human
Party of four or five: Two Humans
Party of six: Two to Three Humans
I think it also depends on the specific race, a party of five with a Human, and Elf, two Dwarves and a half Orc is okay but a party with a 2 Humans, a Dragonborn, an Orc and a Goliath would be a different story
>>53760540
The former sounds more interesting. It would require a group open-minded to the idea of one player having a vastly different party role in the story than the others.
One semi-common adage among GMs is "all Jedi or no Jedi" -- initially referencing Star Wars campaigns, but generalized to advise against large power gaps -- or plot significance gaps -- between players. You can't have a "chosen one" in an RPG, now can you? Even if an NPC occupies that role, it's not unlikely to come off as a GMPC.
That said, if you have a group who is open-minded enough to agree to break the "no chosen ones" rule, it can be a really interesting and refreshing experience. I played in a Fire Emblem-esque campaign where there was exactly one Lord player character, who DID call the shots and DID have the same level of authority as the Lords have in the video games, and it worked out great. Not just anybody can be trusted with that kind of responsibility, of course, but it worked out well.
>>53761096
>>53761283
So for a party of 5, you need 3 farmers, 3 women, and 4 humans
>>53760540
Can't have too many humans. The more the merrier.
>>53761218
I'd play it.
>>53764185
It's more like, the less nonhumans the better. That way the few that are around stand out more.
>>53760540
Eh, I like a good mix: any situation goes well, as long it's not boring as dynamics.
1 human surrounded by a bunch of monsters? Fun shenanigans for all the party.
1 monster surrounded by humans? Pretty classic, nothing special but it work well.
50% monsters and 50% humans? Fun shenanigans with potential discussions of the what constitutes the concept of monster.
No monsters and only humans? Classic campaign. Extreme vanilla, but hey, whatever floats your boat: it's not what you are but how you play it. Perfect for serious campaigns.
All monsters and no humans? Time for witch hunt shenanigans with mobs with pitchforkes and torches running after! Don't expect your classic campaign: the party will be in for saving their own hides before everything!
And so on.
So, really, there isn't a wrong answer, just what kind of fun you want.
>>53760540
>or a mostly normal party with a single monster character as a mascot or comic relief?
That was literately my goblin wizard character
>>53760540
>how many monster race PCs
Friendly reminder that None is a fine option.
>>53761238
And you gotta know who is in fact unusual to have an unusual team.
>>53760540
From this two options, the second. When everyone is a monster, nobody is.
>>53761032
Gentlemen, we are all playing bacteria. No Paul, you can't be bubonic plague again.
>>53770258
>Gentlemen, we are all playing bacteria. No Paul, you can't be bubonic plague again.
man I'd definitely be up for an Osmosis Jones campaign