D&D 5E What's wrong with a human-centric fantasy world?

[BigVanVader]

It's ok to have an Elf who gets drunk a lot. It's ok to have a Dwarf that is a bookworm and never drinks.

This is almost the dynamic between the Dwarf and I in my current favorite game. Except the Dwarf drinks also. Actually, he's who introduced my Elf(Crossing River is his name) to alcohol to begin with.

Good times.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Be my guest. The other players would eat your PC for breakfast when they refuse to heal him, refuse to stop adventuring because he is hurt or out of spells, or if he does not go adventuring with the rest of the group, the DM refuses to give your PC any game time because he refuses to be a party member.

Taking an example to extremes does not mean that the roleplaying faux pas that people are talking about here, actually exists as a problem at most tables.



"too many players"??? You have stats to back that up?


You call it guiding. I call it the DM trying to change how I play my PC.

It doesn't matter. If a player choses an elf for the dexterity bonus, proficiencies, etc and plays the elf paladin like a dwarven barbarian all the time, that's ok.

The Elven Roleplaying Politically Correct Police should keep their nose out of that player's PC. The DM can have a discussion if the player goes to heavy extremes with it that it bothers most everyone at the table, but most players do not do that (or at least IME). There may be, however, some DMs who are super sensitive to this because of some politically correct roleplaying idea that they have in their heads, but that's not a problem with the player. It's a problem with the DM.

It's ok to have an Elf who gets drunk a lot. It's ok to have a Dwarf that is a bookworm and never drinks.

Your table is yours. If elves are a mere stat block at your table, more power to you. I certainly wouldn't tell a player how he had to play his character.

But see, I'm also a great believer in personal responsibility. You can play your character any way you want. But if elves in the setting (you know, the reality of the game world... the part that actually comprises the role playing) value self control and personal honor, a player that roleplays a drunken, thieving elf might find there are consequences to that. Word might get around. Elven vendors might not want to do business with you (or your friends). You might be shunned by elven society. Complications may arise.

This is NOT punishment. If the characters choose to attack the king who is trying to hire them, the DM isn't punishing the players by having the king's guards attack. It's a natural consequence of the players' actions. Ditto that if they play a race in a way that would scandalize the other members of their race.

I think that it would be incredibly hypocritical to demand a DM respect a player's narrative choices and then refuse to allow a DM his own narrative choices, wouldn't you say?

 

[KarinsDad]

I certainly wouldn't tell a player how he had to play his character.

Excellent.

But see, I'm also a great believer in personal responsibility. You can play your character any way you want. But if elves in the setting (you know, the reality of the game world... the part that actually comprises the role playing) value self control and personal honor, a player that roleplays a drunken, thieving elf might find there are consequences to that. Word might get around. Elven vendors might not want to do business with you (or your friends). You might be shunned by elven society. Complications may arise.

This is NOT punishment. If the characters choose to attack the king who is trying to hire them, the DM isn't punishing the players by having the king's guards attack. It's a natural consequence of the players' actions. Ditto that if they play a race in a way that would scandalize the other members of their race.

I think that it would be incredibly hypocritical to demand a DM respect a player's narrative choices and then refuse to allow a DM his own narrative choices, wouldn't you say?

Agreed. My point is that players should be allowed to play off the wall PCs without the DM telling them how to play their PC, not that DMs shouldn't have the campaign world react to player choices.


Also, if the DM does have all elves in the world value self control and personal honor, it's something that he should lay out to the players before any PCs are even created. If a player chooses to ignore that, then the social consequences might happen. Oh well.

But if the DM does not lay this out ahead of time and after 3 months tells the player, you are having BadWrongFun, then that's the DM's mistake, not the player's. The two should try to work it out between them, but the player shouldn't only be expected to modify his PC. The DM should also modify the NPCs a bit to meet a middle ground since it was his mistake that created the issue.

 

[Hussar]

Excellent.



Agreed. My point is that players should be allowed to play off the wall PCs without the DM telling them how to play their PC, not that DMs shouldn't have the campaign world react to player choices.


Also, if the DM does have all elves in the world value self control and personal honor, it's something that he should lay out to the players before any PCs are even created. If a player chooses to ignore that, then the social consequences might happen. Oh well.

But if the DM does not lay this out ahead of time and after 3 months tells the player, you are having BadWrongFun, then that's the DM's mistake, not the player's. The two should try to work it out between them, but the player shouldn't only be expected to modify his PC. The DM should also modify the NPCs a bit to meet a middle ground since it was his mistake that created the issue.

KD, I get what you're saying, and I largely agree, but, (and you knew the but was coming) it's certainly not unheard of for players to play races just for the bonuses. For a long time, I LOATHED elves for exactly this reason. Every single elf character I saw was basically just a human who could wear armour while casting spells.

The worst thing, for me, is when another player at the table turns to the player and says, "You're an elf? Really? Oh, yeah, I forgot that." To me, that's a complete fail by the elf player to portray a character. The fact that the character isn't human should be the first or second thing someone thinks when they think about your character, not the fifteenth. I mean, look at genre fiction where you have non-human characters. The fact that Leggylass and Gimli aren't human is a BIG DEAL. Stepping a bit sideways to Star Trek, you have characters like Spock, and Worf. No one would think of those characters and not immediately think about their race (as in species ). On and on and on.

Playing a non-human should be a big deal. It should be something that comes out in how you play that character. If I were to observe an entire gaming session at your table, and I couldn't guess that your character was non-human, then I do believe that you're doing it wrong.

 

[KarinsDad]

KD, I get what you're saying, and I largely agree, but, (and you knew the but was coming) it's certainly not unheard of for players to play races just for the bonuses. For a long time, I LOATHED elves for exactly this reason. Every single elf character I saw was basically just a human who could wear armour while casting spells.

The worst thing, for me, is when another player at the table turns to the player and says, "You're an elf? Really? Oh, yeah, I forgot that." To me, that's a complete fail by the elf player to portray a character.

In our game, the miniatures tend to help out with that, even if the player is not going out of his way to "portray the race of a character". Yes, our group instantly recognizes (and loathes) my wife's high pitched Halfling voice (which fortunately, she only does a few times per session) along with her Halfling cheerfulness, and it reminds us that she plays a Halfling. But the player of the female Dwarven Cleric never uses an altered voice, has her Dwarf drink ale (or at least not yet), or any other obviously Dwarven traits other than the fact that she is the first to rush into battle, regardless of the consequences. A very Dwarven trait, even if the player is somewhat of a n00b and not that versed in Dwarven traits. Between that and the female Dwarven miniature with a nasty weapon, nobody ever thinks that she is playing a human with Dwarven stats.

I guess I just haven't seen a lot of the "basically just a human who could wear armor while casting spells" traits that you are discussing. Sure, some players roleplay a bit more and some less, but as long as everyone is participating to some level and everyone is having fun, it's all good from where I stand.

The fact that the character isn't human should be the first or second thing someone thinks when they think about your character, not the fifteenth. I mean, look at genre fiction where you have non-human characters. The fact that Leggylass and Gimli aren't human is a BIG DEAL. Stepping a bit sideways to Star Trek, you have characters like Spock, and Worf. No one would think of those characters and not immediately think about their race (as in species ). On and on and on.

To be fair, actors are explicitly given lines and makeup in those circumstances in order for us to get that feeling.

Playing a non-human should be a big deal. It should be something that comes out in how you play that character. If I were to observe an entire gaming session at your table, and I couldn't guess that your character was non-human, then I do believe that you're doing it wrong.

Again. BadWrongFun.

 

[Unwise]

All the games I DM and play in are human-eccentric currently. We rather like earth-that-wasn't type settings, we also play in Ravenloft. Monsters in general are relatively rare in our games too. Undead and experiments gone wrong being the exception.

The main advantage that I find with this is that I can use elves as being far more fey and alien. My PCs hate interacting with them, they are way too wild and unpredictable. They are a source of fear and wonder, which I think is great.

The last elf they came across would not help them until they made her some summer wine from strawberries, cherries and an angel's kiss in spring. By the time they came back with the ingredients the season had changed and she acted entirely differently, having forgotten her whimsical request.

At least that was better than the last male elf, who seemed rather reasonable until he bit into one of them, not because he was a vampire or anything, he just wondered what they tasted like. After that he was quiet helpful. Oh, then he suddenly took great offence that they did not try and hit on to his daughters and attempted to neuter them.

Being human-centric also allowed dwarves to play up the dying race aspect a bit more. In our games they have retreated to their great halls under the earth, leaving the world to men. Finding them is really hard, as half of their halls are overrun by horrors, other other half are huge and underpopulated, so still dangerous. Needing the dwarves' help has been a great plot hook, as finding them and securing their aid are both huge tasks.

 

[Hussar]

In our game, the miniatures tend to help out with that, even if the player is not going out of his way to "portray the race of a character". Yes, our group instantly recognizes (and loathes) my wife's high pitched Halfling voice (which fortunately, she only does a few times per session) along with her Halfling cheerfulness, and it reminds us that she plays a Halfling. But the player of the female Dwarven Cleric never uses an altered voice, has her Dwarf drink ale (or at least not yet), or any other obviously Dwarven traits other than the fact that she is the first to rush into battle, regardless of the consequences. A very Dwarven trait, even if the player is somewhat of a n00b and not that versed in Dwarven traits. Between that and the female Dwarven miniature with a nasty weapon, nobody ever thinks that she is playing a human with Dwarven stats.

I guess I just haven't seen a lot of the "basically just a human who could wear armor while casting spells" traits that you are discussing. Sure, some players roleplay a bit more and some less, but as long as everyone is participating to some level and everyone is having fun, it's all good from where I stand.



To be fair, actors are explicitly given lines and makeup in those circumstances in order for us to get that feeling.



Again. BadWrongFun.

Yup. I consider a character played to the point where the other players at the table have NO IDEA what the species of the character is, to be poor role play. Simply chucking up "badrwongfun" and brushing it off is fine. Obviously, this is something you don't care about. Fair enough. I DO. I care about this. It bugs the heck out of me and, when I actually get to play, i'm very, very careful to lead by example. It's fantastic that you haven't run into this. I certainly have, and more than once. Like I said earlier, it was a particular issue with elves since, in 1e and 2e, elves were the munchkin race. It tended to go hand in hand.

Look, there's nothing wrong with playing against type, so long as there is a type to play against. If I picked up a random Drizz't novel, and read three chapters, I would still know, by the end of three chapters that he was a drow elf. Yes, a different drow than normal, but, still a drow. If I sit down at your table and, after watching an entire session, have no idea what the species of Bob's character is, I consider that to be poor role play. Certainly not something to encourage. It would bother me and, AFAIC, drag down the entire table. It would actively hurt my fun. So, yeah, I'm going to speak up against players ignoring species.

Why is Bob's character a dwarf if being a dwarf is never, EVER referenced at the table?

 

[KarinsDad]

Look, there's nothing wrong with playing against type, so long as there is a type to play against. If I picked up a random Drizz't novel, and read three chapters, I would still know, by the end of three chapters that he was a drow elf. Yes, a different drow than normal, but, still a drow.

Again, novels, books, movies, other media. Totally different concept.

If I sit down at your table and, after watching an entire session, have no idea what the species of Bob's character is, I consider that to be poor role play. Certainly not something to encourage. It would bother me and, AFAIC, drag down the entire table. It would actively hurt my fun. So, yeah, I'm going to speak up against players ignoring species.

Why is Bob's character a dwarf if being a dwarf is never, EVER referenced at the table?

I don't ask many of the PC's last names in our group much either, but I bet quite a few people know the name "Do'Urden" or at least know it starts with a D and it's weird.

I have never seen a PC's race "never, EVER" referenced. I have seen it not brought up in a single game. Why? Because we all know it. Unless we are interacting with a lot of NPCs and the DM has one that has a special interaction with a given race that is in our group, it's not something that comes up a lot.


Course, I read a post here on the boards about a month back where the player thought that he no longer enjoyed the acting part of roleplaying. He'd just as soon have the DM tell him what he needs to know without all of the flowery roleplaying. Personally, I would be ok with that. In my old age, I like to cut to the chase. I've had my fair share of pedestrian roleplaying over the years (i.e. spent a few hours talking with some NPCs and it led to something that we could have gotten in about 5 minutes of our time) to start to like not just combat to speed up, but roleplaying as well. In such a situation, reiterating for the 120th time in the campaign that Bob's PC is an Elf is just a waste of time. I'd rather be exploring, or telling jokes, or fighting. Something a bit more fun than such repetition.

 

[SoulsFury]

Note: I did not read all 7 pages, I am replying to the OP.

I did a campaign once that were all humans landing in a world that had other races. It was a fun campaign that actually led to humans and kobolds being allies, but the players quickly got tired of it and wanted to add more races such as playing ogres.

When this failed because of the lack of diversity, my players wanted to try again with an all one race campaign, but wanted elven. This setting, which has been the main setting from 3.5+, started as an all elven group, which, oddly enough, turned into one of the elves turned lycan (werescorpion). This setting has been built entirely in game through players actions and back stories. What started as an all elven campaign, turned into a world where elves have an area, that is adjacent and allied with a very mixed area (mostly equal parts human and shifter (lycan, one in the same if they are civilized), with a splash of the other core races. These two areas also border a civilized goblin (civilized ones are call joblins) area. Within a few days travel is also a dwarven area, beyond that a halfling area, a dragonborn area (ruled by a bronze dragon), a savanna controlled by wemics, and even a learning, university area of githezerai. It became very diverse because the players wanted it.

My point is, what do your players want, and what are you willing to work with? My campaign that I wanted human centric, failed because the players didn't want to be human. They live every day in REAL life as humans. They didn't want to play make believe as a human. They were much happier playing fantasy races. The campaign setting we have created together has been far more satisfying that any setting in my 20 years of RPGs. Forgotten Realms? Yawn. Greyhawk? What? Dragonlance? Great books, boring setting. Playing in a world where your blacksmith isn't human or a drunk dwarf? Much better. You can go to a city and not be a minority as a minotaur? Now that's fantasy. Do what works for you, but I wouldn't have a successful campaign if we were playing Game of Thrones with D&D rules.

Also to note, none of the races are dying races, all races are building the realms. Humans aren't overtaking. Dwarves aren't secluding themselves. Elves aren't blocking their borders. Halflings aren't wanderers or hidden away into a shire. Minotaurs don't hide in caves. Centaurs don't live alone in the woods. Satyr have villages. Dragonborn have kingdoms. Dragons talk and can rule. Beholders are a real threat, not just some high level dungeon monster. At level one my players did encounter an ancient red dragon, rescued a goblin and worked for an adult bronze dragon while setting up the death of an old green dragon.

 

[BigVanVader]

Note: I did not read all 7 pages, I am replying to the OP.

I did a campaign once that were all humans landing in a world that had other races. It was a fun campaign that actually led to humans and kobolds being allies, but the players quickly got tired of it and wanted to add more races such as playing ogres.

When this failed because of the lack of diversity, my players wanted to try again with an all one race campaign, but wanted elven. This setting, which has been the main setting from 3.5+, started as an all elven group, which, oddly enough, turned into one of the elves turned lycan (werescorpion). This setting has been built entirely in game through players actions and back stories. What started as an all elven campaign, turned into a world where elves have an area, that is adjacent and allied with a very mixed area (mostly equal parts human and shifter (lycan, one in the same if they are civilized), with a splash of the other core races. These two areas also border a civilized goblin (civilized ones are call joblins) area. Within a few days travel is also a dwarven area, beyond that a halfling area, a dragonborn area (ruled by a bronze dragon), a savanna controlled by wemics, and even a learning, university area of githezerai. It became very diverse because the players wanted it.

My point is, what do your players want, and what are you willing to work with? My campaign that I wanted human centric, failed because the players didn't want to be human. They live every day in REAL life as humans. They didn't want to play make believe as a human. They were much happier playing fantasy races. The campaign setting we have created together has been far more satisfying that any setting in my 20 years of RPGs. Forgotten Realms? Yawn. Greyhawk? What? Dragonlance? Great books, boring setting. Playing in a world where your blacksmith isn't human or a drunk dwarf? Much better. You can go to a city and not be a minority as a minotaur? Now that's fantasy. Do what works for you, but I wouldn't have a successful campaign if we were playing Game of Thrones with D&D rules.

Also to note, none of the races are dying races, all races are building the realms. Humans aren't overtaking. Dwarves aren't secluding themselves. Elves aren't blocking their borders. Halflings aren't wanderers or hidden away into a shire. Minotaurs don't hide in caves. Centaurs don't live alone in the woods. Satyr have villages. Dragonborn have kingdoms. Dragons talk and can rule. Beholders are a real threat, not just some high level dungeon monster. At level one my players did encounter an ancient red dragon, rescued a goblin and worked for an adult bronze dragon while setting up the death of an old green dragon.

That sounds like great big wet globs of fun, actually.