Human-only campaign

[Barastrondo]

I'm pretty sure my group would have zero problem with such a proposed idea, but honestly I enjoy the intellectual challenge of keeping other races fresh and interesting when I change themes. It's part of the fun I have with D&D in particular as opposed to other fantasy RPGs and their settings. I enjoy figuring out what elves might be like in a Grecian-inspired setting, how halflings might fit into something India-inspired, or what humanoid races compliment a Russian-themed campaign best. I like brainstorming visually, and other races add interesting visuals. Of course, considering my professional resume includes Relics & Rituals: Excalibur and Olympus, this is likely not surprising.

So yeah, I'm not adverse to the idea; I mean, I've got plenty of experience with other "human-only" RPGs. I do prefer my D&D in particular with gnolls, but their absence in and of itself is not a deal-breaker.

(In fact, those other RPGs are why I didn't vote in the poll: I wasn't sure if the intention was specifically Dungeons & Dragons with only humans, or if other fantasy settings counted.)

 

[billd91]

I've played in a humans-only campaign. That's the way the setting is designed - no traditional D&D demi-humans. I would play it again. In fact, the next campaign in the setting starts tomorrow.

 

[Verdande]

I'm not a big fan of demi-humans, being one of those people who believes that another race of being would have totally inscrutable thoughts and should be some sort of monster class. Although not necessarily hostile.

Still, even when I don't outright say, "No elves or dwarves or whatever," there really aren't many. People like humans, and with good reason.

 

[Aeolius]

People like humans, and with good reason.

When I look in the mirror, I see a human. Why would I want to role-play one in a game, when other options are available? Granted, back in the 1e days I played a human cleric from levels 1 to 19. That took over four years. After that, I was tired of human characters.

As others have said, if the campaign calls for it, then I can understand the restriction; a historic campaign or a modern/future game, perhaps.

The last 3 campaigns I have run, however, have excluded core races for use as PCs altogether (2 undersea games and a brief campaign set in Hades where PCs began as larvae). I've had an all-animal campaign concept on the back-burner for over a decade.

In retrospect, I suppose I have told others that I would allow a human PC in my undersea game... for as long as they could hold their breath. Then they are required to take one of two Prestige Classes; Anchor or Bait.

 

[Dausuul]

I like humans-only campaigns. As a player, I do generally want some mechanical variety, but that can be accommodated easily by doing what others have suggested and adding cultural backgrounds to replace the standard races--so a PC from a barbarian tribe that puts a premium on strength and physical prowess might get bonuses to Str and Con, while a PC raised amid scheming urban aristocrats would get bonuses to Int and Cha instead.

 

[slwoyach]

I like it, I enjoyed running the OGL Conan game which has different human races instead of non-human races/species. I thought it was a bit unfair* giving Cimmerians an INT penalty, though!

Which is why I make racial modifiers optional. As a Cimmerian you can choose to receive a +2 str/-2 int OR you can choose to have no ability modifiers. I also cap all abilities at 18 to start. So while some races have a leg up in some abilities, the minimum and maximum abilities are equal regardless of race.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I'm not adverse to playing in a all-human campaign in the least. Over the years I've played a few human PCs but mostly I like different races. Right now I am playing a Dragonborn Paladin and a Goliath Barbarian and am enjoying both immensely.

 

[Nameless1]

I have played many human only campaigns. The only time I had any objection, it was for mechanical reasons. Since then I have allowed any races mechanics, as long as you could reskin it and expain it as a human. No problems since.

 

[TarionzCousin]

There are hundreds if not thousands of RPG's for humans only. When I play D&D I expect the world to be full of non-humans--and I want the option for the players to play other races, too. It adds textures to the game world.

 

[MrMyth]

I voted "Have played, liked" though technically I ran the campaign rather than playing in it.

It wasn't explicitly 'humans only', but was strongly geared for that - the human empire had ruled for millenia, elves/halflings/etc existed but were largely subservient to mankind. Most monsters that threatened the PCs from outside civilization were literally made of evil - you didn't have communities of savage but noble orcs, you had hordes of ravenous goblinkin.

It worked out well - everyone ended up playing humans. The setting borrowed a decent bit from Rokugan/Lot5R, included having 7 big 'clans' for people to associate with, which I think helped - it helped distinguish character background without any differences in race. Later in the campaign, one player started a new character that was essentially an ancestral spirit (Aasimar), and another player took a curse upon himself (represented as a Tiefling), but both fit in fine as variations on humans.

It probably isn't something I would do again, at least not as a full campaign (and the events of the campaign were specifically designed to make more races playable, introducing the 4E races of Dragonborn, Tieflings, rousing the independance of Elves, etc.)

But the players seemed to have no issues with it, nor did they seem to feel too limited in their choices. My big recommendation would just be to have enough background elements that characters can still feel distinct, whether that comes from different societies, bloodlines, kingdoms, etc.