Does anyone else never play humans?

[Burrahobbit]

I'm with lastalas...I tend to feel, when playing a non-human, and especially as I'm just starting out, without having had a chance to define the character in play, that I'm either settling into the stereotype ("Yeah, he's dour and taciturn. He's a dwarf.") or else conspiciously bucking the stereotype ("Hey, everyone, look at *this* dwarf! He's flighty and flamboyant!").

Ok, obviously that's a gross oversimplification, and it's plenty avoidable, but it does seem to me that in most settings, every race but human has a "built-in" culture, whereas humans are more or less free (again depending on the setting) to choose a culture as they see fit.

Not an iron rule, and obviously a bit of creativity can make an interesting and nuanced character of any race (though everyone enjoys a taciturn dwarf every now and then), but I do think it's a point worth making that there's a sort of conflation of race and culture in the core rules (and most settings) that can feel a bit limiting at times.

 

[sniffles]

I wouldn't say I never play humans, but I do have a preference for playing non-humans, especially elves. Part of the reason I participate in RPGs is to enjoy imagining what it's like to be something other than an ordinary human female living in the 21st century on Earth, and that's why I like to play non-humans. I especially like elves for the challenge of playing such long-lived beings. How does that change the way they look at the world?

Recently some of my gaming buddies have been talking about running the new "Serenity" game, and although I love the tv series and film, I'm a bit put off by the fact that I'd be forced to play a human. I don't like having that choice taken away from me.

 

[The_Gneech]

Well, in previous editions when everything that wasn't human was SO MUCH BETTER, I made a lot of elves and half-elves for a while, then ended up going back to humans because I just liked the feel of them better.

Since the advent of 3.x, I have yet to play a non-human, largely because the only game other than mine is one of these Epics That Last Forever[1]. If there were some pickup games going, I'd probably dabble around in some other classic builds (e.g., dwarf fighter, elf ranger, halfling rogue) just for variety.

-The Gneech

[1] As it is, I'm constantly tempted to forget to mention to the DM that my character has taken a ton of damage, so he can get killed and I can come up with a new one for variety.

 

[Barak]

Dwarves or humans for me. Everything else is sub-par.

Except, of course, for D20 Modern, in which I solely play human characters.
Weird, eh?

 

[Aaron L]

I play mostly either humans or elves.

 

[mcrow]

Don't play humans all that much but it's not because I don't like them. There are just a wide assortment of races to play that i just tend to try out ones I havn't played before. I like Halfling,gnome, and dwarf characters the best though.

 

[MerricB]

Back in the days of 1e, the answer to your question seemed to be "everyone but me".

Cheers!

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm the opposite, I prefer playing humans over other races. I guess I prefer the extra skill points and feat over anything the other races offer.

of course, I'm fairly happy to play anything.

 

[Jdvn1]

I guess everyone around here plays different sorts of characters than I do?

For Fighter-types, I don't see the point of taking Human for the extra feat. Oftentimes, that feat is used for an Exotic Weapon Proficiency--why not take Dwarf instead? The Dwarven Waraxe is just as good as the Bastard Sword, and the Dwarven Urgosh is a good double weapon. Plus, Dwarves get extra bonuses. Weapon Familiarity is good for Fighters.

For Rogue-types, the small races with a +4 Hide? Awesome. Plan on taking a feat to boost your saves or Alertness or something? Be a small character or an Elf.

Are you a caster-type class? Be an Elf. The weapon proficiencies are really useful. Being able to use a bow is very nice.

That extra feat is simulated by most of the other races, and then some.

 

[mcrow]

I guess everyone around here plays different sorts of characters than I do?

For Fighter-types, I don't see the point of taking Human for the extra feat. Oftentimes, that feat is used for an Exotic Weapon Proficiency--why not take Dwarf instead? The Dwarven Waraxe is just as good as the Bastard Sword, and the Dwarven Urgosh is a good double weapon. Plus, Dwarves get extra bonuses. Weapon Familiarity is good for Fighters.

For Rogue-types, the small races with a +4 Hide? Awesome. Plan on taking a feat to boost your saves or Alertness or something? Be a small character or an Elf.

Are you a caster-type class? Be an Elf. The weapon proficiencies are really useful. Being able to use a bow is very nice.

That extra feat is simulated by most of the other races, and then some.

I agree with you here. I use this approach to fill gaps in our party. If it looks like out party needs a good fighter I will pick race that is better suited for it and the same with other classes. If it looks like the party doesn't really have a particular need I tend to pick races and classes that make intresting combos for role playing purposes in the given game.