Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SpiralBound" data-source="post: 3004512" data-attributes="member: 8396">This post is prompted by a comment a friend once made that I've never fully believed.&nbsp; He said that a setting (whether for rpgs, a movie or a novel) MUST have humans present.&nbsp; It can have all kinds of other races and oddities, but without the presence of at least one human or human-equivalent character, the people who view/read/interact with this system won't have a baseline of comparison and thus will be unable to relate fully to the setting.&nbsp; Not being able to relate to a setting means that they won't understand, care or be as interested by the setting, thus making a setting without a human to act as a guide or &quot;perspective bridge&quot; will end up being a failure.I call BS on this theory.&nbsp; Sure, some people would feel more comfortable or have an easier time with a setting if they can perceive a human perspective within the setting, but I find it hard to accept that nearly everyone would fall into this category.&nbsp;&nbsp; Surely, &quot;the human condition&quot; doesn't require a 100% human baseline to be present before one could emotionally or intellectually relate to the rest of a setting.What do others think?&nbsp; Would you run or play in a setting with no humans?&nbsp; Would you find a setting that didn't include a human or human-equivalent mental perspective difficult to relate to?&nbsp; If so, why?&nbsp; Why would one require the human baseline to begin their understanding from?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SpiralBound, post: 3004512, member: 8396"] This post is prompted by a comment a friend once made that I've never fully believed. He said that a setting (whether for rpgs, a movie or a novel) [u]MUST[/u] have humans present. It can have all kinds of other races and oddities, but without the presence of at least one human or human-equivalent character, the people who view/read/interact with this system won't have a baseline of comparison and thus will be unable to relate fully to the setting. Not being able to relate to a setting means that they won't understand, care or be as interested by the setting, thus making a setting without a human to act as a guide or "perspective bridge" will end up being a failure. I call BS on this theory. Sure, some people would feel more comfortable or have an easier time with a setting if they can perceive a human perspective within the setting, but I find it hard to accept that nearly everyone would fall into this category. Surely, "the human condition" doesn't require a 100% human baseline to be present before one could emotionally or intellectually relate to the rest of a setting. What do others think? Would you run or play in a setting with no humans? Would you find a setting that didn't include a human or human-equivalent mental perspective difficult to relate to? If so, why? Why would one require the human baseline to begin their understanding from? [/QUOTE]

Verification