Would you be willing to play in a campaign setting with none of the core races?

[Mach2.5]

If the world doesn't have humans or the humanoids we know, then I fully expect the writer/DM/whatever to have put some serious thought into changing the culture along with it.

Me and some associates had a project going some time back about designing a world without humans, or the basic structures of a human inspired society (for more of a backwater sci-fi setting). The setting was to be used for a novel or series of novels, but the loss of the main coordinator for the group involved has left the idea on the back burner for most of us. Nothing ever got past the 'notes and brainstorms' phase, but thats still over 200 pages of notes and ideas. There was never anything that resembled a 'replacement' race for humans either, nor did there ever really seem to be a need for the developement of one. We had talked a little about porting it into an rpg context, but have done very little with it in that regard either since we never thought the idea of a total non human (and quite strange) setting would appeal to very many people. After reading this thread though, I may have to pull some of those notes back out and see where we left off at.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

My suspsension of disbelief is sorely, sorely strained by any game that does not at least involve humans. Anything else is fair game to be modified, included, or excluded.

Humans don't have to be playable, as long as they exist. I could play a TMNT-style game with little trouble, even in a D&D setting.

 

[Argent Silvermage]

Why yes... I have played and loved Talislanta.

In all seriousness. I would love the chance to play something other than the standerd.

 

[Mercule]

Keep the humans. No anthropomorphic animals -- beastmen are fine, but not humanoid raccoons.

Otherwise, I'm game for it.

 

[Desdichado]

Sure, I'd go for it. However, I'd hope that some serious thought was given to the alternate races. I don't want the schtick of the campaign to merely be "no elves, dwarves, halflings, etc." After all, those are a useful frame of reference, and to replace them you'd need something you could latch onto and understand pretty quickly.

Oh, and I have no interest in anthropomorphic animals either. Remove litorians and sibbecai and Diamond Throne becomes a very intriguing setting to me, with them it's "yet another campaign setting."

 

[PJ Mason]

Would/could you play in a campaign setting with no elves, dwarves, humans, gnomes, halflings etc?

Yes, please. Where is it?

 

[Arnwyn]

"No chance in hell" got my vote.

I have a very particular style of game that I like to play, and that's pretty much it.

(And I have a hard time imagining what the replacement races could be, barring monsters or furries - both which I find abhorrent as something playable... Well, furries are abhorrent all the time, to me.)

 

[Ottergame]

Still no one will explain what's wrong with a furry only world.

 

[Wombat]

Only problem I have with an "All Furry" world would be the same reason I dislike Neighborhood Totoro and Kiki's Delivery Service -- sounds too kewt.

OTOH, I know other people who would love such a game to tears.

Falls into the same category as much anything else -- all comes down to personal takes and tastes.

 

[Aeolius]

Still no one will explain what's wrong with a furry only world.

lemme guess...you'd like to play an anthropomorphic otter?

Granted, in my campaign I have a tiefling mermaid, oceanid (daughter of a salt hag and triton), fine damselfish hivemind, human altered with pseudonatural fish hag grafts, a half-dragon/half-fiend, triton prince, a half-elemental sea elf, and a sea elf suffering from seawolf lycanthropy.

If your otter had gills, he'd fit right in.