Merlin the Tuna
First Post
Can someone enlighten me as to why all these polls are having Animate Dead cast on them? This is some serious Threadcromancy.
Do You Prefer a Humanocentric RPG Setting?
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
I voted 'No' but I have to qualify this one:
There's about one setting I know that actually pulled this off reasonably well.
Apart from Earthdawn all settings I know are human-centric. But I'd absolutely love to see more settings if they were done well. It's definitely more challenging to roleplay in such a setting, so the background description has to be pretty good. A line of novels to accompany the setting would help, too (I'm actually thinking of Darksun as well, here, even though that was a human-centric setting it was sufficiently exotic to make it difficult to 'get into').
There's about one setting I know that actually pulled this off reasonably well.
Apart from Earthdawn all settings I know are human-centric. But I'd absolutely love to see more settings if they were done well. It's definitely more challenging to roleplay in such a setting, so the background description has to be pretty good. A line of novels to accompany the setting would help, too (I'm actually thinking of Darksun as well, here, even though that was a human-centric setting it was sufficiently exotic to make it difficult to 'get into').
Mercule
Adventurer
Yes. I don't actually mind non-humans, but I don't see much point in non-humans for non-humanity's sake. They can add flavor to a campaign, but when everyone is an elf, no one cares (IME). I've even gone so far as to prohibit more than one character in a group of any particular race other than human (i.e. one elf and one gnome).
If there is a reason for the inhumanity, or the non-humans aren't just humans with forehead ridges (or long ears, etc.), then I'd be just tickled to see a low-to-no human group.
If there is a reason for the inhumanity, or the non-humans aren't just humans with forehead ridges (or long ears, etc.), then I'd be just tickled to see a low-to-no human group.
Invisible Stalker
First Post
Yes
The other races can come along, but the humans are the straw that stirs the drink.
The other races can come along, but the humans are the straw that stirs the drink.
Tewligan
First Post
Yes, yes, we know. You hate humaniti. Got it.
I definitely don't like "humanocentric" game worlds.
I like worlds that are human-only. But if there are other playable races, I expect them to play important role. I hate worlds that are quasi-historical, with fantastic elements added for flavor. I care much more for the internal consistency of the settings than for realism (as in "being similar to the real world").
What I also don't like is humans having many different cultures, skin colors etc. and still counting as one "race" (especially, all having the same game stats), while other races are much narrower culturaly and ethnically (often just reduced to stereotypes) and still being divided into (mechanically different) subraces.
On the other hand, I don't want my games to devolve into "monster zoos", which happens in many D&D groups. It's the opposite to humanocentrism - assumption, that whatever creature there is, it may become a player character, and that no matter how strong natural and cultural tendencies are in a race, a PC may be an exception to them. It may also come from more and more expansion books adding more and more strange races - that, in most cases, do not fit the earlier ones.
I like worlds that are human-only. But if there are other playable races, I expect them to play important role. I hate worlds that are quasi-historical, with fantastic elements added for flavor. I care much more for the internal consistency of the settings than for realism (as in "being similar to the real world").
What I also don't like is humans having many different cultures, skin colors etc. and still counting as one "race" (especially, all having the same game stats), while other races are much narrower culturaly and ethnically (often just reduced to stereotypes) and still being divided into (mechanically different) subraces.
On the other hand, I don't want my games to devolve into "monster zoos", which happens in many D&D groups. It's the opposite to humanocentrism - assumption, that whatever creature there is, it may become a player character, and that no matter how strong natural and cultural tendencies are in a race, a PC may be an exception to them. It may also come from more and more expansion books adding more and more strange races - that, in most cases, do not fit the earlier ones.
GreatLemur
Explorer
I'm not sure where it started, but when I saw one of them come up on the front page, I went to the RPG Survey Round-Up . . . without noticing how old they all were. So, yeah, I think most of the necromancy's my fault.
Still, it's kind of weird these threads didn't get more replies back in 2006. I don't know if Mark is still interested in the answers, but I've been enjoying the threads.
EDIT: Ah, okay, looks like Coplen started the resurrection here.
Last edited:
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
I think it is great to see the amount of generic gaming discussion fostered by these polls as they are bumped. Most are as relevant today as they were when first created. I'm enjoying the posts, even the old ones.
Similar Threads
