Humans as default

[Ruin Explorer]

My problem is that humans are not EVEN the "vanilla" race, but rather one race of many. I like my FRPGs human-o-centric, dammit, and 4E is explicitly not human-o-centric!

Still, even from a mechanical perspective, I do agree with the "Oh god it's 2E all over again!", because my players, who, in 3E, were "Humans all round!", in 4E, are not even thinking about playing humans. Even my brother who is outright hard to convince to play a non-human said "Elf Ranger" after reading the PHB. Sheesh!

 

[Byronic]

I've lived in enough different countries in my life to see human beings as diverse. Different customs, expectations, social structures etc.

Speaking about it how often are elves played as elves rather then a human with pointy ears and perhaps feeling a bit of cultural superiority (yeah, that never happens with humans)? They may be diverse in the book but I'm not sure how differently they're played character wise.

 

[Trickstergod]

My problem is that humans are not EVEN the "vanilla" race, but rather one race of many. I like my FRPGs human-o-centric, dammit, and 4E is explicitly not human-o-centric!

Still, even from a mechanical perspective, I do agree with the "Oh god it's 2E all over again!", because my players, who, in 3E, were "Humans all round!", in 4E, are not even thinking about playing humans. Even my brother who is outright hard to convince to play a non-human said "Elf Ranger" after reading the PHB. Sheesh!

The various races all have something sexy going for them. 7 squares of elven movement? Eladrin can teleport? Tieflings are just nifty in and of themselves.

Humans, meanwhile, just don't. They are vanilla. They don't have anything that really defines them other than a number of options that aren't particularly specific, just variable.

Back in 3rd edition, humans had the sexiest advantages. Now? The other races do. Even if they're not necessarily better (I haven't seen enough of the game played to say), they're just not as sexy.

 

[Family]

Some of my best friends are humans.

 

[GSHamster]

I think it stems from how we view ourselves. You see a lot of this in science fiction as well.

If we look at real world examples, humans are not the strongest animal, not the weakest, not the fastest, not the slowest. We may be the smartest, but positing other sentient races who are dumber sounds boring, so we make them as smart as us.

What we are, what we take the most pride in, is being the most adaptable, the most diverse.

If you look at science fiction, it's extremely common to have races that are far more specialized than we are. Instead, authors tend to make humans be the diplomats, the "glue" between races.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

If you look at science fiction, it's extremely common to have races that are far more specialized than we are. Instead, authors tend to make humans be the diplomats, the "glue" between races.

Not good authors though.

Honestly I don't really care, I seldom use standard races anyway and usually make humans one of the less common races. Usually I emphasize the closeness between humans and orcs. Humans are agressive, expansionist, war-like, and not particularly tolerant. They're smarter and more organized than orcs but much like them. In some settings this is the source of emnity, but in others humans and orcs are long-time allies with a similar culture and half-orcs are fairly common.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I see the supposed diversity of human culture in our world as a gloss, under which you realize that it's basically the same structure repeated over and over again.

Humans are certainly adaptable compared to other animals on our planet. The question is could you have a species that is similar to humans in all other ways but just not as adaptable?

 

[GSHamster]

Not good authors though.

Name authors/works that don't. I'm actually interested in finding authors that have a different take on humanity.

For what it's worth, I think C.J. Cherryh does the best aliens who are actually alien from a mental standpoint, and Julie Czernada from a biological standpoint.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Name authors/works that don't. I'm actually interested in finding authors that have a different take on humanity...For what it's worth, I think C.J. Cherryh does the best aliens who are actually alien from a mental standpoint, and Julie Czernada from a biological standpoint.

I agree with you on Cherryh and Czernada. Though I have to say Cherryh does very poor humans. Richard Fawkes does a good job on alien mental issues, as do Vinge, and some of Card's works. There's another series whose author I'm blanking out on that did a series about an alien empire. A slave species that was vaguely mammalian and a pseudo-reptilian ruling class. That one was very good on both mental and biological standpoints. Eric Flint can do very good aliens but usually sticks closer to home.

Then again I think most of the science fiction involving aliens is poorly written rubbish. So I generally stick with a few authors whose works I know and largely dealing with human only stories since finding good aliens is so difficult.

 

[GSHamster]

I agree with you on Cherryh and Czernada. Though I have to say Cherryh does very poor humans. Richard Fawkes does a good job on alien mental issues, as do Vinge, and some of Card's works. There's another series whose author I'm blanking out on that did a series about an alien empire. A slave species that was vaguely mammalian and a pseudo-reptilian ruling class. That one was very good on both mental and biological standpoints. Eric Flint can do very good aliens but usually sticks closer to home.

I'll check out your recommendations, but I think the discussion was less about realistic aliens, but more about humans occupying a different niche than "adaptable".