D&D General Greyhawk Humanocentricism?

[Tonguez]

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?

 

[Remathilis]

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[emoji2400] 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?

I think the idea of Greyhawk's human-centric focus diminished in 3e, and I doubt the topic will be addressed specifically in 5e.

That said, I feel the notion of human centric design is a dying one. D&D copied it from Tolkien, which focused on human ascension as the fantasy races faded (the dwarves dying out, the elves retreating West) and the idea of humans as being less mechanically advantageous (no traits) but could achieve unlimited class advancement in any class are both more or less forgotten tropes. They were the two biggest reasons for human centric settings.

But personally I have always allowed weird options because fantasy is fantastical. As long as it's balanced.

 

[Zardnaar]

Depends on how strict the DM is. It's fine if a DM does that.

I would stretch it to include the AD&D phb races and add races that make sense that are spin offs of humans and demi humans.

Tieflings, Genesis, Drow make sense for example. Gith as well.

To many races regardless of what they are tends to dilute a setting down. Hence why most add 3 or 4 to spotlight the setting.

 

[Krachek]

For what races matter now in 5.24 I guess the whole game is humanocentric.

 

[Shiroiken]

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?

If I had to guess, I would say the majority of games are humanocentric, even if not called out as such. Almost every campaign I've ever played in had humans as the "default" race in the world, even if it was filled with all manner of other races. In addition, it's been rare for a DM feel the need to clarify "a human" when describing an NPC, while every other race is specified automatically. I don't think this is done on purpose, however, but simply because that's what we as humans default to.

 

[DarkCrisis]

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

I have zero problem with a humanocentric setting (though I generally don't run one). Don't really care how "contemporary players" would feel about it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As always, this depends on what the table (including the DM) want.

If everyone shows up wanting to play animal people, announcing that "no, sorry, this world is 99% humans" is a mismatch that's going to leave someone frustrated.

Nowadays, I'm much more in favor of hearing what players want to play first and then creating a world where those choices represent the most important groups and factions. And even in existing settings, one can usually find a quiet corner of the map to carve out something bespoke like that.

"Yes, most of Oerth is very human-centric, but you all live in a secluded valley that long ago was once home to a powerful spellcaster who transformed the local animals into sentient beings before disappearing a few years ago ..."

 

[Parmandur]

I think the idea of Greyhawk's human-centric focus diminished in 3e, and I doubt the topic will be addressed specifically in 5e.

That said, I feel the notion of human centric design is a dying one. D&D copied it from Tolkien, which focused on human ascension as the fantasy races faded (the dwarves dying out, the elves retreating West) and the idea of humans as being less mechanically advantageous (no traits) but could achieve unlimited class advancement in any class are both more or less forgotten tropes. They were the two biggest reasons for human centric settings.

But personally I have always allowed weird options because fantasy is fantastical. As long as it's balanced.

I would say pretty close to the opposite: without the wild popularity of Tolkien's multi-racial world, then Gygax would not have included explicit racial options to begin with: maybe a "sure, play a dragpn of you can figure out what to do", but not like it was with the Tolkienian races.

 

[Stormonu]

Since mid 3E, my games include the token human. I run a fair bit of Greyhawk-based games (or my homebrew world).

I'm fine with it - I tend to run dwarves myself, I don't think I've run a human character as a player. I mean, that's what I am in real life, why would I want to remain one when I'm in a fantasy game?