D&D General Greyhawk Humanocentricism?

[CreamCloud0]

Human settlements:

• 1/2 Bree
• Rohan
• Minas Tirith
• Laketown

wasn't there like, several little village-towns? i could've sworn

 

[Parmandur]

wasn't there like, several little village-towns? i could've sworn

Nope, that's it. Bree, the Hobbit/Human combo settlement (put into the Hobbit "trilogy"), Rohan, Minas Tirith and Laketown. That's it.

 

[Hatmatter]

I was flicking through Dragon Magazine 241 (1997) and in an article by Roger Moore about adding additional PC races (including Derro, Skulks, Jermlaine and Dopplegangers) came across the following quote:

"The GREYHAWK® campaign, like all others, is open to the development of new PC races. However, any races addedshould maintain the campaign’s overall flavor, which is particulary humanocentric. Humans are the true shakers andmovers of this setting; demihumans and humanoids hold second place, and monsters like dragons, beholders, and soforth come in a distant third..."
My own world is very humanocentric, to the extent that Dwarfs dont exist, Elfs arent a playable race (though half-elfs are) and Halflings are a type fae too. (Goblins, Gnomes, Half-Giants and Saurian are playable however)

So just how Humanocentric is your game and with the resurgence of Greyhawk how do you think the ideal of a "particulary humanocentric" world as a design principle would go down with contemporary players?

My current campaign is very anthropocentric as it is set in Renaissance England. The fantastic with which characters interact is the result of (either fleeting or predictable) portals to the Feywild. Mirroring England's contention with the Spanish Empire over access and exploitation of the New World (North and South America), those political powers battle for access to the Feywild along leylines and their efforts to exploit the Feywild. Competing with that are unknown powers within the Feywild who are, in turn, attempting to exploit late 16th-century Europe.

The PCs just recently learned that Francis Drake earned his coat of arms and surname when he "overcame" an actual drake.

Anyway (and this is simply my preference, please no need to flame me as a response), my preference is not for the "Mos Eisley Catina" style of fantasy. I appreciate the introduction of dragonkind into the game in the 4th edition and I like how the presence of goliaths and dragonkind as species now add to ancestral rivalries present among the species options (aasimar-tieflings, elves-orcs). There is rich material there to incorporate into campaign settings. Nevertheless, I wince when dragonkind, tabaxi, and aarakocra appear in the Honor Among Thieves film (which I like). Everything we are discussing and the game we are playing (it goes without saying) is silly fun. But those kinds of Mos Eisley elements strike me as particularly silly. Perhaps it is because the world around them and its civilization is so human and familiar to us and I would think the influence of that kind of alien consciousness would alter civilization more than it does.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Cheers!

 

[SkidAce]

I don't think Tolkien is particularly fresh or new to middle schoolers anymore. There's just FAR too much fantasy out there anymore, and far more easily accessible for Tolkien to even register anymore.

We read Tolkien as middle schoolers because there weren't really any alternatives at the time. There was just so little fantasy out there. But, between a shed load of TV, movies, video games, books and whatnot, I doubt that a middle schooler's formative fantasy will be Tolkien anymore.

Hard to say...at the rate they come into Barnes and Noble and buy Tolkein, its certainly formative for some of them.

 

[Emerikol]

"Traditional vs new" literally is an edition warring point. Even when the "tradition" is less than a decade old.

No. I think edition warring is more than just a flavor preference. I can assure you if 5e was only objectionable to me because of a race I didn't like I would have bought it and just banned that race in my game. It wouldn't really mean I hate 5e. I see war as war meaning you hate the edition.

Saying I prefer to play with this flavor seems pretty innocuous in general to me.

 

[Parmandur]

Hard to say...at the rate they come into Barnes and Noble and buy Tolkein, its certainly formative for some of them.

Yeah, Tolkien still sits on top of the best-seller lists for fantasy and science fiction, and new editions of all his books are being out out nearly constantly.

Amd kids still read him.

 

[Emerikol]

So here is how I'd do things if I were king:

1. I'd have a very limited tradition set in the Players Handbook. Like maybe three: Humans, Elves, Dwarves.
2. I'd have a book of races with like a hundred new races designed that can be dropped into any campaign. This book would also say that even the original three are not sacrosanct and can be replaced. I'd also provide clear guidelines and tools for adding more races.
3. In the PE and/or in the Races Guide, I would clear layout that a campaign world can be any mixture of races. It's a flavor choice.

The best thing about this idea for me is that it would fix in people's mind the idea that every campaign does not have to have the entirety of all races. I personally find these campaigns to not be as good in my opinion. So everything becomes one option but it's not the only option. And it would allow DMs to craft campaigns that veer wildly off the traditional Tolkien approach without feeling obligated to carry the Tolkien races along.

 

[Emerikol]

Also, is there some reason that people in games have to pay the consequences when they do bad things? Sometimes bad actors get away with it in stories and settings. Just like real life. The real world isn't running on morality, where good is rewarded and evil is punished. There's no reason are games have to either.

It is a trope of fiction writing, related to thematic elements, that the bad guy has to get his just desserts. It gives some satisfaction. I realize real life doesn't always feel that way.

 

[MGibster]

We read Tolkien as middle schoolers because there weren't really any alternatives at the time. There was just so little fantasy out there. But, between a shed load of TV, movies, video games, books and whatnot, I doubt that a middle schooler's formative fantasy will be Tolkien anymore.

I was born in the 70s and started reading in earnest in the late 80s, and I remember having plenty of fantasy books. It was only later when I actually read Lord of the Rings that I realized how derivitive many of the fantasy books I read actually were. It actually put me off fantasy. Seriously, I forget which book, but one of them featured a dwarf who was reading Lord of the Rings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is a trope of fiction writing, related to thematic elements, that the bad guy has to get his just desserts. It gives some satisfaction. I realize real life doesn't always feel that way.

I don't see RPGs as fiction writing. More like exploring a real-seeming imaginary world through the PCs.