D&D as humanocetric ... or not?

[Eyes of Nine]

I allow all races in published D&D 5e books (including Ravnica - although none of my players have chosen that yet) and UA Tortles (because, Tortles).

My rule though is that a PC is special, even among their kind. Therefore they can apply attribute bonuses of +1 and +2 anywhere they like. That's why I have a gnome barbarian with 18 strength . It also removes the problematic issue of stereotyping by race.

 

[RogueJK]

D&D initially drew extremely heavily from Tolkienesque fantasy, in which Humans are the most numerous race. Yes, there are frequently non-humans and demihumans, and they often serve as primary protagonists/antagonists, but the world itself as a whole is dominated by the human population. As a result, that's still basically the default scenario in most traditional high fantasy settings.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My 5E campaign takes place in the larger D&D multiverse, so we kind of stick to he races by world and so on, but ultimately everything is on the table. Anything 3rd party, I just ask to see it and review it to make sure it fits.

If I run another 5E campaign again, I'd probably do so in an original homebrew world rather than revisit the D&D settings. As such, I might have ideas of what options would be available in mind. However, I also expect that I'd confirm with my players what kind of campaign/setting they'd like to play, and what kind of options they'd like to see.

Generally speaking, I try to not make such decisions in a vacuum.

When I'm a player, I typically play humans. Probably about 80% of my PCs are human. I honestly don't see the need to play anything else, and I find that elves and dwarves and such tend to lean very heavily on some racial archetype of some sort, and that tends to limit how they're roleplayed. Most elves are Legolas or Elrond, every dwarf is Gimli, and so on. This isn't always the case by any means, just seems to be a trend. I also struggle to think of a character concept that a human can't really cover.....even if some races may lend themselves to a specific conflict or struggle, humans can still do the same.

As for settings being human centric, I think that may be the case even in the presence of other races.....humans can be the kind of default outlook, and everything revolves around them. I think maybe this can apply at the setting level.....like someone could describe Greyhawk as human centric and I would understand why they did so. But in play? A campaign would probably depend on the players and the choices they made, and then the kinds of adventures they went on. Looking at a lot of the early modules for D&D.....I would not expect adventures or a campaign to really be human centric. What's human centric about the G-D series?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I'm someone who DMs largely to give my friends a good time, so I try to be open to whatever my players suggest as long as I can make it work mechanically.

Man, you should run a game with a succubus and paladin trying to coexist. Honestly pretty fun.

 

[Laurefindel]

6. Any choice from a limited selection of curated races.

Depends on the campaign and desired themes. Altogether, PC races in D&D are plentiful and open to anything reasonable (published or not), but that doesn't mean that anything goes for every campaign.

However - in regards to the title of the tread - it is very rare that "humans" (or some very closely-related race) doesn't make the curated list for any campaign setting/themes/ambiance.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In fairness, alien is what I imagine everyone else to be. I was told, once, by a doctor that there's like ... a name for that.

But why should I trust the doctor? Probably just advancing the alien agenda.

but jokes aside, I forgot to mention another aspect. For a lot of people, there is an intense and irreplaceable existential satisfaction in playing the Other, and either not being stigmatized for it, or overcoming the stigma and becoming the hero/victor/undisputed champion.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[schneeland]

We once had a small spinoff adventure, where I played a Loxo barbarian, and also an evil campaign where I played a half-fiend. But apart from that it is either humans only (most of the time) or classic fantasy races. I don't have to forbid other races, though, as desire to play them seems limited.

 

[JeffB]

I prefer #1.

But I voted #3.

I could have voted #5 too. That official book being the Basic Rules v 1.0 or the new Essentials Kit rulebook.

I tend to run settings where 1/2 Orcs, Goblins, Dragonborn, Tieflings, and some classes are not a good fictional fit. Gnomes usually get the OK (in fact I'd prefer gnomes over halflings)

 

[Marandahir]

For my games, I try to work with what the players want to play.

In practice, that means any official or semi-official Splatbook (DMs Guild Adepts, looking at you). But in terms of my campaign world, I’m really trying to avoid the kitchen sink. I’m also trying to avoid the Humanocentric world building.

What arises is a specifically curated list of races that have established stories in my setting world, but if a player brings a race that I know is balanced enough to accept, I’m not going to say No, but instead let the player guide that story and how it fits in.

I guess then my world is sort of like Eberron in that sense. Everything has a place, but we’re not in Mos Eisley Cantina.