D&D General No Humans? (Well, the players... but that's it.)

[Corinnguard]

OK so I'm thinking people might be assuming that your question is about a DnD rpg? Because again, are people going to say "I don't want to play Mouse Guard/Spire/whatever else because you can't be a human?" Or maybe they will... I don't know

Since D&D has been around for 50 years and has dominated the RPG field for years, it maybe that most people equate D&D with RPG unless told otherwise.

 

[ezo]

Great stuff!

That is the billion dollar question. One of the reasons I usually only go human is I tend to explore characterization within personality. Then, I apply different viewpoints to the politics at large in the setting. Most rule books are written from a blank general slate, which makes sense nobody knows where this thing is going until its going. I think many adventure writers lay off ancestry/species exploration because who knows what an adventure group is going to look like?

This is something that I get. Here's the thing about 5E: there are too many races IMO. I mean this in the sense of a setting, not for the game.

Many DMs will only use PHB races, or have a curated list for their game world. In essence, we're shooting for the curated list concept. However, there comes into question if the "enemies" of the PC races can be played as PCs? Like in typically D&D, an orc or goblin being played as a PC because 5E has the option, but in the game the DM uses them mostly as adversaries.

So, I guess if you have wood elfs or hill dorfs that ought to mean something. More than steady feet or low light level vision. Those mechanics are fine, but I need a little more than a couple bennies to feel the difference.

Exactly. For example, the biology of some of the races is dealt with because they are very "alien". They things we can relate to, e.g. this race as three lungs and two hearts, but in some cases aren't related to human biologic at all.

I know this isn't a direct answer, but im hoping it leads to a good discussion.

No problem! I'm here to discuss, get feedback, answer questions, etc.!

 

[Deset Gled]

By "medieval" I suppose I could have said "swords and sorcery", instead. The idea is there will be swords, bows, armor, etc. but as we've been developing these more "alien" races, things don't quite fit in every case. It is an interested challenge.

This does make a difference. To me, at least, "medieval" has a historical implication. It's tied to a specific part of (human) history. The closer something is to medieval, the more I expect it to be like that reality (or the Hollywood equivalent of it). The more fantastical, the less medieval it will be. Of course, you can have a healthy balance with lots of both. But the more extreme one is, the harder it is to achieve the other.

Since D&D has been around for 50 years and has dominated the RPG field for years, it maybe that most people equate D&D with RPG unless told otherwise.

This thread is in the D&D Forum and has the D&D General tag. I assumed it was using D&D for those reasons.

 

[ezo]

Honestly, I'd play anything at this point, if offered. Human is my go-to race, but I would not mind a game/setting without them.

BUT! I'd prefer a setting without human AND without any of the most common fantasy races.

Give me a setting with only Dhampir, Plasmoid, Autognome, Hexborn, Satyr and Bugbear, then I'll be really happy.

Cool! But were hoping to not even include anything from 5E, which is why we're creating custom races, although some are based known concepts, such as the cyclops.

OK so I'm thinking people might be assuming that your question is about a DnD rpg? Because again, are people going to say "I don't want to play Mouse Guard/Spire/whatever else because you can't be a human?" Or maybe they will... I don't know

DnD-related? DnD-esque? How much "DnD" it will be in the end, I don't know, either. We began with it being heavily D&D-oriented, but as we continue to develop and playtest it, parts of DnD keep sliding into the background or gone completely.

This does make a difference. To me, at least, "medieval" has a historical implication. It's tied to a specific part of (human) history. The closer something is to medieval, the more I expect it to be like that reality (or the Hollywood equivalent of it). The more fantastical, the less medieval it will be. Of course, you can have a healthy balance with lots of both. But the more extreme one is, the harder it is to achieve the other.

Very true. I mentioned above perhaps "swords and sorcery" would be better than "medieval", if that helps?

This thread is in the D&D Forum and has the D&D General tag. I assumed it was using D&D for those reasons.

Well, I placed it here because it is fairly DnD-esque in some of the things about it. Since we began in the DnD "framework" (we are still using the common six attributes: STR, DEX, etc., for example) posting it here was my first thought to see how "tied" DnD players are to having humans in the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Cool! But were hoping to not even include anything from 5E, which is why we're creating custom races, although some are based known concepts, such as the cyclops.

Does the eye beam deal fire or force damage?

It's a longstanding argument among experts on Cyclops.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I'll run/play in a game that in which humans are the only race, but I have no interest in a game without humans as a playable race.

Pretty much this. I am very seldom interested in playing a non-human. Very seldom. Like almost never. I vastly prefer playing a human. Don't know why. Just do.

 

[ezo]

Does the eye beam deal fire or force damage?

It's a longstanding argument among experts on Cyclops.

Our experts have discovered evidence in some ancient caves in southern Greece: it is actually plasma damage for their eye bolts!

 

[ezo]

Pretty much this. I am very seldom interested in playing a non-human. Very seldom. Like almost never. I vastly prefer playing a human. Don't know why. Just do.

Yeah, no worries! 90% of the time my PCs are humans or dwarves.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Cool! But were hoping to not even include anything from 5E, which is why we're creating custom races, although some are based known concepts, such as the cyclops.

even better!

If going for Sword and Sorcery, I'd avoid any classic races such as dwarves and elves that have become the standard for medieval fantasy.

I'd go with things like (for either PC or monster races):

Galatean -> Stone-like constructs with a society based around beauty and the arts.
Snake-men (or plain Yuan-ti) -> Rather human looking, but their tongue is a snake and is actually the part that controls the body
Heakaton -> Multi-armed half-giant, think Goro from Mortal Combats
Deva-> Ala 4e D&D
Garudan -> Antro-divine birds.
Rakshasa -> Shapeshifting (think changeling) feline fiend.
Salamandir -> Diminutive fire elementals, born alchemists and scholar.

 

[Greg K]

This thread is in the D&D Forum and has the D&D General tag. I assumed it was using D&D for those reasons.

This is why I assumed D&D as well. If we were playing something based on say Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo or either Looney Tunes or Walter Lantz animation, I would be fine with no humans.*
*edit: However, I would have to be in a specific type of mood for either.