D&D 5E My players want Human Centric

[doctorbadwolf]

What am I supposed to do with a statement like this? Quite apart from the minor dig at me personally, it's textbook special pleading. "They're different." Okay, how? How is the difference relevant to this discussion? Does it follow that playing a game in the Earthsea or Westeros universe would be boring even though reading the book isn't? Are fantasy games that are set in such universes boring -- games like The Witcher, or Diablo, or Dark Souls? And is this alleged boringness limited to fantasy games, or are Civilization, Grand Theft Auto, and Portal likewise boring because they don't let you play as an elf? If not, why not?

Man, you're getting way too bent out of shape over this discussion.
By the way, you've not established any useful connection between what is good for novels and what is good for roleplaying games, first of all. You've also not shown, or even given any actual support for the argument, that there is anything remotely negative about including other races, nor anything particularly positive about excluding them.

And you know that The Witcher has elves, right? You just don't get to play as one because you only get to play as a single character. A TTRPG based on it would be weird if you couldn't play as any non-monster except humans. Maybe only use examples you're actually familiar with?

 

[Dausuul]

By the way, you've not established any useful connection between what is good for novels and what is good for roleplaying games, first of all. You've also not shown, or even given any actual support for the argument, that there is anything remotely negative about including other races, nor anything particularly positive about excluding them.

You're the one who brought up fantasy literature in the first place. If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You're the one who brought up fantasy literature in the first place. If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

So, ok...

no, I'm not the one that brought it up, first of all. My first comment on the subject was a response to a post about what books readers.

Second, at what point did I say anything about relevance?

Lastly, I commented on the idea of readers being hooked more easily by stereotyped races, saying that the idea sells readers short, and that most fantasy doesn't rely on those stereotypes. Them, TCK, for some reason, went on a weird rant about how many fantasy works have elves, or whatever, and got increasingly grumpy about my lack of desire to engage in that debate.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

By the way, you've not established any useful connection between what is good for novels and what is good for roleplaying games, first of all.

So you want to double down on this "novels are just different" thing? Even though I've already provided concrete examples of human-only fantasy worlds being successful in RPGs as well?

Fine. Not everything that is good for novels is good for roleplaying games. But the differences arise from changes in pacing and structure -- how events in the plot are presented to the audience/players, and how the protagonists interact with those events. This consideration does not apply to fundamental worldbuilding facts like whether or not there are elves. There is no difference in what makes a world appealing or unappealing at that macro level whether it's presented as a book or a game -- which is why we can have books set in the Forgotten Realms, and games set in the Hyborian Age. Nobody is reading Salvatore and saying, "Ugh, all these elves were fine in the RPG, but in novel format they just don't work." And nobody is playing Age of Conan and saying, "Ugh, the lack of elves was fine in the stories, but in RPG format it just doesn't work." Worldbuilding works the same for both media, even if other elements of writing don't.

You've also not shown, or even given any actual support for the argument, that there is anything remotely negative about including other races, nor anything particularly positive about excluding them.

Because I'm not making that argument. Both are fine. I like Lord of the Rings and Dungeons & Dragons as much as the next guy. Like I already said, I'm responding to the negativity towards human-only worlds.

And you know that The Witcher has elves, right? You just don't get to play as one because you only get to play as a single character. A TTRPG based on it would be weird if you couldn't play as any non-monster except humans.

I forgot. I apologize. But that still leaves Diablo and Dark Souls out of the examples I gave.

Them, TCK, for some reason, went on a weird rant about how many fantasy works have elves, or whatever, and got increasingly grumpy about my lack of desire to engage in that debate.

Sorry, but no sell. Sniping at me and then trying to blame me for responding to your criticism is about as disingenuous a way of "not engaging" as you could find.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION] you keep trying to have a discussion with me that I've been clear on not caring about. If your whole point is to talk about hostility toward human only worlds, find someone who is hostile toward them. I don't care. Literally what happened was I stated, to someone else, not even to you, that most fantasy doesn't rely on dumb stereotypes like drunken Scottish dwarves, and you interjected with a rant about something else, that I don't care about.

Stop op dragging me into an argument I've never shown literally any actual interest in.

 

[Lehrbuch]

To address the question: no I have not really experienced player hostility to details in the setting.

The only time I have experienced big problems was not so much related to setting as to the idea of what a character was. The idea of this campagin was that the players would play successive waves of PCs, who would each progress so far in the campaign story before being killed; and for the story to continue with a different set of PCs who might be following or simply in parallel to the previous. The players didn't understand, and just got pissed off when their PCs got killed. But ultimately, the fault was mine for not really explaining the idea clearly. I learned something!

In one the elves used to have a world spanning empire but now have retreated back to only one known city in the far north. The Elves were bearded and used to have the other races enslaved or just created them for servants etc..

Although different in detail, this doesn't sound that different to me from Tolkein elves, or Moorcock Melniboneans, etc. In many settings "elves" are a civilisation in decline.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

@TheCosmicKid you keep trying to have a discussion with me that I've been clear on not caring about.

*sigh* Next time, if you want to be clear that you're not interested in a discussion, say "I'm not interested in that discussion", not "That's leagues away from a thorough list of fantasy works, much less an exhaustive one" or "You don't seem to understand that reading a book and playing a game are different activities." When you critique the points that people are making, that looks an awful lot more like engagement than disengagement.

 

[Dausuul]

Stop op dragging me into an argument I've never shown literally any actual interest in.

If you have no interest in it, you can stop having it any time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

*sigh* Next time, if you want to be clear that you're not interested in a discussion, say "I'm not interested in that discussion", not "That's leagues away from a thorough list of fantasy works, much less an exhaustive one" or "You don't seem to understand that reading a book and playing a game are different activities." When you critique the points that people are making, that looks an awful lot more like engagement than disengagement.

Decent advice. I'll offer some of my own in return. Don't expect people to engage seriously with tangential arguments.

i don't mean that to be snarky. I make tangential arguments, too. I just don't expect anyone to engage meaningfully with them, because they're just unimportant asides.

 

[Warrior Poet]

In all the thread this:

1- they don't read

is the part that broke my heart the most.

Still learning,

Robert