D&D 5E Humans Only

[Maxperson]

It's interesting that some folks are making connections between "humans only" and realism, grittiness or low fantasy. That's the Game of Thrones influence, I guess, but it never really occurred to me. Both Arthurian fantasy and pulp fantasy lean toward humans only but both also support the kind of cinematic and high wonder fantasy 5E is good at. If I were aiming for low or gritty fantasy, regardless of the presence of playable non-humans, i would definitely go back to 1E or B/X (depending on how crunchy I wanted my game).

I think a lot of people associate human only parties with human only(or human mostly) real world settings, like Rome or Carthage. My personal experience is that most players don't want to do that much realism, but do like X race only campaigns once in a while to switch things up. Switching things up once in a while adds to the fun, which is what the game is about. That it removes some options for one campaign is irrelevant. Fun is fun.

My break as a player is coming to a close. I do most of the DMing for my group. The players are brainstorming what kind of campaign they want to play so that I can start prep work while the current campaign winds down. So far among all the other ideas, I've heard human only, drow only and goblin only. The latter two are surprising, because they are actually considering an evil campaign and that's new.

 

[GuyBoy]

Definite yes from me.
If the DM is aiming for a particular theme that requires humans only, I’m fine with that. Respect to the DM for doing the job and I’d throw myself into it with the best engagement I can, just as I would with a traditional D&D game.
To be honest, I’ve only actually played a humans-only game, other than a modern game, Cthulhu and a really good 1066-era game that was only cut short by the DM moving away.
I did DM a drow-only mini campaign with the players having to escort a heavily pregnant drow princess through the Underdark to a “safer” city, following a civil war in their home city which had seen her house fall.
At an early GenCon UK in the 1980s, the competition adventure saw us all playing half-orcs, shrunk by our irritable wizard master and sent into his plumbing system to retrieve a powerful magical ring that had fallen down the plug hole. “One ring to.........and in the U-bend bind them.”

 

[Greg K]

I like humans only as PCs, because my main influences are Archer: Fugitive From the Empire (a.k.a. Archer and the Sorceress (in Europe)), Beastmaster (original movie and TV series), Dragonslayer, Excalibur, Ladyhawke, Harryhausen Sinbad movies.

 

[Yaarel]

I think a lot of people associate human only parties with human only(or human mostly) real world settings, like Rome or Carthage. My personal experience is that most players don't want to do that much realism, but do like X race only campaigns once in a while to switch things up. Switching things up once in a while adds to the fun, which is what the game is about. That it removes some options for one campaign is irrelevant. Fun is fun.

My break as a player is coming to a close. I do most of the DMing for my group. The players are brainstorming what kind of campaign they want to play so that I can start prep work while the current campaign winds down. So far among all the other ideas, I've heard human only, drow only and goblin only. The latter two are surprising, because they are actually considering an evil campaign and that's new.

Heh, will they be Udadrow?

 

[aco175]

I think a lot of people associate human only parties with human only(or human mostly) real world settings, like Rome or Carthage. My personal experience is that most players don't want to do that much realism, but do like X race only campaigns once in a while to switch things up. Switching things up once in a while adds to the fun, which is what the game is about. That it removes some options for one campaign is irrelevant. Fun is fun.

I was thinking just this and the 2e/3e Jerusalem articles in Dragon Magazine which took place around the Jesus times at the crossroad of Rome, Africa, and the Middle East. That may be a decent setting if you can add some more traditional items like spells and some magic to give a bit more D&D. There was also the great article on how to make Sherwood a campaign and play merry men.

After reading your comments, I am now also seeing a game where you all play part of a noble family or soldiers in the same unit. Some ideas may be more fun to me as a whole group of another race.

 

[ph0rk]

I usually play humans or human-adjacent characters so it wouldn't bother me. The system has a ton of options, a particular game doesn't need to use them all.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

For sure with no problem. I much prefer humancentric campaigns. I've banned all non-human characters from the last two campaigns I've DMed.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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.

Adventurers are often voluntarily putting their lives in the hands of the other party members. It implies a good level of trust and Ilike campaign that start with a cohesive reason for PCs to act together.I wouldn't be put-off by a human only campaign if the pitch is "You're all part of the same family/clan".. It seems pretty tame constraint on the story we're about to play (especially since I don't think races are played distinctively enough in 5e to be anything more than human-with-darkision, so I don't feel I am losing a lot).

Actually, I am about to play in a campaign where we're all supposed to be Cannith heirs, which doesn't forbid non-human but it would stretch credibility to have an adopted Goliath, an adopted elf, and an adopted dwarf. A single non-human or non-warforged could fit, but the expectation is that we'd mostly be Cannith heirs (either dragonmarked or vhumans).


But I'd also go with classes restriction or setting restriction. If the GM says "we'll do a pirate campaign set in the Lhazaar Isles, so you can be whatever you want but you need a character that will agree with the basic premise of working for the pirates", that I'd feel would be more restrictive than human-only (or elves only).

 

[Kurotowa]

I voted No because I've done it twice and both times it sucked. But on reflection, both times it wasn't just "Humans Only" but the DM trying a gimmick where magic was rare or unknown and would only be discovered via play and so we were limited to only no-magic character classes. And that's kind of a majority of the classes and subclasses ruled out, in 5e. So I probably have unfairly negative associations that were more due to the limited class selection than the "Humans Only" restriction.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I actually play a lot of humans normally, so I'm not sure it would bother me, per say, but at the same time it seems like you'd need a reason for this restriction in the first place, and that could sway my answer. Without that knowledge, I can't definitively say yes or no.

On another note though, I'd almost certainly be against single class game.