Do You Prefer a Humanocentric RPG Setting?

[Corinth]

Yes, I do prefer a humanocentric setting. Other races should, by and large, be restricted to NPCs and non-human player-accessable racial options should never be a better option (in terms of gameplay) than Men.

 

[Gold Roger]

It creates a point the players can relate to and underlines the fantastic elements through contrast. The same reason I use the good old pseudo-medival-europe approach.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Titan AE would make a great RPG setting. So, no.

 

[Tsillanabor]

Not really, but it is difficult to find players willing to put enough effort into playing a non-human campaign.

 

[X-Marks!]

White Bread is for Eating.

You'd really have to work harder than just about anything I've ever seen out there to convince me that Humans are interesting enough to really carry a setting. I've run games where they were the pariahs of the world and it really made the other races pop! At the very least I go for complete multi-culturalism in my world design, to keep things as vital and fantastic as possible.

 

[Psion]

Nope. I am a human in real life. I don't think it's strictly necessary that a fantasy setting feature non-human races (either their mere existence or their dominance as a species.) But I certain think its a valid axis of variation.

Depending on what your non-human races are, it becomes hard to justify making the setting humanocentric. A think a fantasy version of the Matrix setting where humans are essentially sidelined is a valid scenario if you allow powerful monstrous races greater dominance in the game.

 

[The Shaman]

For the most part, yes, I prefer humanocentric settings.

That said, I wouldn't mind playing...

• an underwater fantasy campaign with merfolk, locathah, sahuagin, and so on as player characters
• an all-hengeyokai fantasy setting
• an all-Vargr Traveller campaign

...with the 'right' game master and players.

 

[Glyfair]

Q

You'd really have to work harder than just about anything I've ever seen out there to convince me that Humans are interesting enough to really carry a setting.

Glorantha, when Runequest 2 was released, was about as humanocentric a campaign setting as you could get. 90% of the player characters were human.

As RQII developed, more races tended to be played, but it still centered around humans. Trolls were pretty popular, but that's because Trollpak was (and still is) the ideal racial support product. Even so, Trolls were a race with an alien mindset, and it was emphasised in the product (which is one of its strengths).

Greg never really developed much on elves and dwarves until much later in the process. In fact, he states that Dwarves are so alien that a player could never play one properly in the dwarf issue of Different Worlds.

Even so, Glorantha was a very, very popular campaign setting. When RQIII distanced it self from the setting a bit, it was louded derided by most followers of the game.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Answer: yes (except for Planescape)

 

[Agback]

Do You Prefer a Humanocentric RPG Setting?

Yes. My Non-Humans Are Rarely Any More Alien Than Could Be Played By Humans In Latex Masks. I Find Truly Alien Characters, Characters Who Think (In John Campbell's Felicitious Phrase) "As Well As A [hu]Man, But Not Like A [hu]Man") To Be Too Difficult To Sustain In A Long Adventure. Playing A Mostali [RuneQuest Dwarf) Made My Imagination Hurt, And I Simply Can't Imagine Playing A Dragonnewt Or RuneQuest Elf. So You Find A Few 'Elves' And 'Dwarves', 'Flyers' and 'Divers', Gathin, 'Naiads', Leshy, Giants, And Sprites In My Campaigns, But They Are All Essentially Humans With Makeup And Perhaps An Occasional Special Ability.