D&D General Greyhawk Humanocentricism?

[CreamCloud0]

So we're looking for a David the Gnome type of vibe? The goblin tinkerers you're describing are straight out of World of Warcraft (though I'm not sure it originated from them).

View attachment 381974

Genuinely, i don't know who that is/what they're from so I can’t say if they are ‘meant to be like them’, though i hazard a guess at the old DnD cartoon.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I like them.

If you merge them with halflings like I prefer to, creating a single "fey of the land" race.

Not my preference. I like Hobbits and Tinker Gnomes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sincerely: what makes a dragonborn or tiefling so alien that you cannot relate to them? Why is it that a dwarf or an elf, who will live multiple centuries, a literally inhuman experience, is somehow more relatable than a person who has an unusual head growth or odd skin tone (a perfectly ordinary human experience)?

Being part of the community they live within, having long-term ties to NPCs, basically having the PCs be part of the setting rather than "special" protagonists who stand apart. You can do that with any race of course, but it's easier (and more likely to happen in most games I've been a part of) when the community has members of the PCs species as part of it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Being part of the community they live within, having long-term ties to NPCs, basically having the PCs be part of the setting rather than "special" protagonists who stand apart. You can do that with any race of course, but it's easier (and more likely to happen in most games I've been a part of) when the community has members of the PCs species as part of it.

if i might attempt to rephrase @EzekielRaiden question because i don't think you've answered what you were asked, in a scenario where dragonborn, tieflings and aarakockra are the 'standard citizens' of a setting where functionally no humans or similar equivilants exist, what is preventing them from being 'relatable' when all that fundamentally differentiates them from humans are some ultimately superficial physiological differences, in comparison to species like elves and dwarves who possess lifespans that are multiple generations longer than humans, a factor that is much more likely to place psychological distance between them and humans yet you claim are somehow 'more relatable'.

 

[Pauln6]

It's also worth noting that in 1e, the only 'common' creatures were humans and orcs. So arguably, Oerth is also orc-centric.

 

[CreamCloud0]

So we're looking for a David the Gnome type of vibe?

i'm kind of going for the concept of gnomes as the 'original druids' in much the same way that tieflings are often assumed as the 'original warlocks', orcs were the 'original barbarians' and dragonborn are sometimes thought of as the 'original (draconic) sorcerers'

i recognise that while some of those aren't 100% lore accurate you get the idea i'm trying for?

 

[Micah Sweet]

if i might attempt to rephrase @EzekielRaiden question because i don't think you've answered what you were asked, in a scenario where dragonborn, tieflings and aarakockra are the 'standard citizens' of a setting where functionally no humans or similar equivilants exist, what is preventing them from being 'relatable' when all that fundamentally differentiates them from humans are some ultimately superficial physiological differences, in comparison to species like elves and dwarves who possess lifespans that are multiple generations longer than humans, a factor that is much more likely to place psychological distance between them and humans yet you claim are somehow 'more relatable'.

Nothing, but I personally would have a hard time finding such a civilization as relatable as a human one, because the altered physiology (and likely psychology as well) would make such a civilization very different from a human equivalent, or at least it should.

The same would be true with dwarves and elves, by the way. The only difference would be the prevalence of cultural guide posts for them in the literature; the cultures in question would as you say be quite different, and harder to relate to.

In short, I don't see the "superficial" differences you're referencing as all that superficial, not if you're trying to take it seriously.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's also worth noting that in 1e, the only 'common' creatures were humans and orcs. So arguably, Oerth is also orc-centric.

True enough. It would be fun to run a Greyhawk campaign from the orc point of view.

 

[Zardnaar]

True enough. It would be fun to run a Greyhawk campaign from the orc point of view.

I think they did an adventure along those line. You had to defend your lair.

 

[Voadam]

if i might attempt to rephrase @EzekielRaiden question because i don't think you've answered what you were asked, in a scenario where dragonborn, tieflings and aarakockra are the 'standard citizens' of a setting where functionally no humans or similar equivilants exist, what is preventing them from being 'relatable' when all that fundamentally differentiates them from humans are some ultimately superficial physiological differences, in comparison to species like elves and dwarves who possess lifespans that are multiple generations longer than humans, a factor that is much more likely to place psychological distance between them and humans yet you claim are somehow 'more relatable'.

Not who you were asking but I find the monstrously alien appearance a sufficient factor on its own.

For tiefling it is the 4e+ standard big horns and tail tiefling versus 2e and 3e tieflings who could be completely human looking, human looking with a small trait (flaring eyes, hair color, etc.) a big devil trait like hooves or tail or horns, or full 4e devil non human.

Whether you want relatable or not is going to vary.

In My Wildwood game there were no humans in the settlements except any PC who chose human and I had lots of nonhuman monstrous PC options, one PC was a tigerman race for instance.

In my Gothic Horror game I was specifically going for gothic themes with a lot of emphasis on monsters as cursed or twisted humanity. I was fine with things like 2e style tieflings being subtly fiend blooded humans which worked with the campaign themes, but not fully inhuman dragonborn or monstrous things like bugbears.