D&D 5E Humans Only

[FrogReaver]

Why would people mean something VERY different from a 'no' to what the original question asked? The original question postulated a campaign with "no other major limitations are presented, and it is going to otherwise be a "typical" D&D campaign of the sort you prefer," and so I (and probably a lot of other people) answered what was actually asked.

They skimmed it? They ignored it? People are weird?

 

[Dessert Nomad]

They skimmed it? They ignored it? People are weird?

Assuming that all of the dozen people who answered the question in a way you don't like didn't actually answer the question is probably not the best way to encourage discussion, especially when you assume that they actually meant something much more extreme than what the question asked. Also it's generally bad for real discussion if 8.3% of the people who answered 'no' respond directly to you and you ignore every bit of their response except for where they pointed out the bad assumption.

 

[FrogReaver]

Assuming that all of the dozen people who answered the question in a way you don't like didn't actually answer the question is probably not the best way to encourage discussion, especially when you assume that they actually meant something much more extreme than what the question asked. Also it's generally bad for real discussion if 8.3% of the people who answered 'no' respond directly to you and you ignore every bit of their response except for where they pointed out the bad assumption.

I didn't assume anything. I asked them which way they meant it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not in the context of reducing available options that people enjoy using, no.

Is a human only campaign an option? If so then why insist on reducing that option for others?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Just curious: if you were offered a seat at a D&D campaign table, but there was a "humans only" rule for PCs, would you play. Assume all other things being equal -- it's a GM you know and trust, no other major limitations are presented, and it is going to otherwise be a "typical" D&D campaign of the sort you prefer.

Bit of an odd question, but yeah. In fact, I would prefer a Human only campaign; at least for all initial PC's. Maybe when a PC dies they can bring in a demihuman or non-human, but human preferred.

I'm in an "opposite of that" campaign right now (finally!...but it is online, FGU is the VTT; my sister-in-law is running it for us...there's 7 of us total, including her). Nobody is human...which is what I was going to make until my bro said "You're gonna make a Human and mess up all our Darkvision, aren't you?". So I made a Gnome. A Svirfneblin, to be exact. A Svirfneblin Paladin called Hootoch "Hoots" Gloryhammer (and yes, he is inspired by the awesome 80's-viking-metal-band "Gloryhammer"...look 'em up on Youtube).

I'm finding it...strange? To try and RP in an all-no-humans group of other adventurers; it's just...weird. Feels like I'm playing Talislanta for the first time again.

All Human campaign? Yes please!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Ath'kethin]

I've run nothing but human-only campaigns since 5e began. I've never had any complaints, and in fact I've had multiple players tell me that my campaigns were their favorite they've ever played. And since I met them when we all played in other campaigns, I know that have at least SOME perspective.

Of course, I'm clearly playing with the sorts of people who would answer "yes" to the OP's question. Which suits me fine.

 

[Reynard]

So for clarity, the initial poll question isn't the same thing as my actual game plan. I wasn't trying to trick anyone. I am simultaneously curious about folks' feelings about humans only games sans baggage, AND thinking about a specific campaign. If some people feel like I was trying to get them to answer a different question than I asked, that wasn't the intent. Threads evolve.

On the subject of folks that decided to express a belief that a humans only campaign was code for something more sinister: well, after initial shock and horror on my part, I have come to the conclusion that those folks should probably be ignored by, well, everyone.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I'm 100% okay with a humans only campaign world. I live in a humans only world, so I find it easy to relate to. Rather than having different fantasy "races" be a thin allegorical stand-in for different cultures, ethnicities, and races of human like they almost inevitably end up being in fantasy worlds just have your fantasy humans have different cultures, ethnicities, and races.

Personally if I was running it though I'd probably allow any race that didn't have obviously impossible for humans attributes (like retractable claws and shapeshifting) to be played as a human of particular "lineage" (to use that trendy new WotC jargon).

I will say I'm not a fan of having races exist in the world and then not making them playable unless there is a strong narrative reason for doing such.

 

[CubicsRube]

The amount of assumptiom and ire a sometimes simple post can generate is what keeps me from getting involved in a lot of conversations here.

I'm all for freshening things up than playing the same old campaign. If I was in a campaign with only humans that'd go towards doing that.

But as another poster said, it's the group i play with much more than the campaign

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my silk road game I came up with cool fluff about how Tieflings became a nomadic race of Persian influenced traders after the fall of their empire. That work was basically wasted effort because no one chose to play a Tiefling.

Why would that be wasted effort? Surely you have NPCs from this culture!

Is a human only campaign an option? If so then why insist on reducing that option for others?

No one is entitled to me playing a game with them, which is the actual question.