Do You Prefer a Humanocentric RPG Setting?

[the Jester]

Yes. But let me clarify: I prefer a humanocentric setting; the pcs can be all halfling or all dwarf, for instance, from time to time. But they live in a predominantly human world.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While most of the RPGs I own are steeped in humanocentricism, I don't consider that (or its absence) a factor in my enjoyment.

 

[James Heard]

Most of what I do is humanocentric, unless it's something else -centric.

 

[Aaron L]

Yes. I really hate the proliferation of humanoid races, especially since they are almost universally "humans with funny foreheads" and are almost all really bad ripoffs of one human culture of stereotype or another.

In my setting the only humanoids I have are humans, elves, and dwarves. I love elves, and dwarves have thier place.

Now, world hopping games are another story entirely. Something like Planescape, or (better yet) Dragonstar, you need every kind of race you can get!

 

[Ranger REG]

Do You Prefer a Humanocentric RPG Setting?

In fantasy, nope. Humananiti is the reason why I escape from the real life. They're stoopid. A waste of primordial goo.

In modern, I can tolerate them, so long they're on the receiving end of my weapons.

In future, they won't be 'round long in the 'verse.

 

[fnork de sporg]

Gods no. All I ever get to interact with in life are humans. And I guess cats.

I also don't like settings where the PCs are relatively powerless and have no real chance of changing the setting or impacting the world around them. I probably wouldn't like games that involve crappy dayjobs, or searching for decent employment, or having to the dishes but you really don't want to so you put it off and then you sink is full of dishes and it starts to get all nasty and mold grows on stuff.

 

[DMH]

Hell, no.

One of the reasons Gamma World is my favorite setting of all is that humans screwed over the planet and now there are other species that can help rebuild better with their different perspectives. Through in plants and fungi, and the result could be much more interesting than today's world.

 

[glass]

I voted 'No'. Most settings are humanocentric for a very good reason, as several posters have already pointed out, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for others to do thing a little differently.

I'm rather fond of Council of Wyrms, for example.


glass.

 

[The_Gneech]

Yes, generally, although "no-humans" or "very rare humans" or "humans are big, dangerous monsters" campaigns would be welcome if it was a nice, strong concept.

One of the things that annoys me about the D&D computer games is that walking into a town is like walking into Disneyland, with randomly-scattered gnome grocers, elf street sweepers, and dwarf petshops...

-The Gneech

 

[lukelightning]

I'm tired of the same-old Tolkeinesque "Humans are the young race taking over from the elves and dwarves who are the fading-away-elder-races blah blah blah."

How about humans are the race in decline, with the new races of elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. in ascendance?