D&D General Moar Greyhawk: Anthropocentrism and Humanity in Greyhawk

[Flamestrike]

I think it's pretty well-established that Gary Gygax spoke of favoring fighting men and humans (despite playing that most famous magic-user, Mordenkainen). But no matter what he said about D&D being humanocentric, I can say that in our 1e gaming group back in the day, humans were still in the minority or made up half the party at most. The level cap system for demihumans was never a deterrent for players, it would seem. Save for some of the particularly harsh limits, we never got close enough to them in a campaign that it mattered.

The drow of Greyhawk, though, are especially thorny. There is no world where Wizards ever publishes another book where the drow are unmitigated, all-evil, all the time, antagonists. Would Greyhawk purists accept a more inclusive vision of Erelhei-Cinlu?

We had Humans because of Dual classing. Much better than multiclassing as long as you can endure the suck of getting your XP total back up again.

 

[TwoSix]

Theoretically, the new race rules in TCoE could be a boon to building a more "humanocentric" setting. Players can still have access to a broad swath of racial abilities and bonuses but the character can still be skinned as just a human with a little something extra.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think it's pretty well-established that Gary Gygax spoke of favoring fighting men and humans (despite playing that most famous magic-user, Mordenkainen). But no matter what he said about D&D being humanocentric, I can say that in our 1e gaming group back in the day, humans were still in the minority or made up half the party at most. The level cap system for demihumans was never a deterrent for players, it would seem. Save for some of the particularly harsh limits, we never got close enough to them in a campaign that it mattered.

See, this is where I think we have to have some sort of divide between the way that tables played, and some textual support. Different tables played in all sorts of ways, and it's hard to generalize table experiences.

To be more explicit, the following two three (I really can count, promise) statements can be true:

A. Greyhawk (Flanaess) is a humanocentric campaign setting. The world is mostly populated by humans, the major conflicts and powers revolve around humans, and the history of the world is largely the history of humanity. Other races orbit around humanity.

B. The adventuring party is special. Most of Greyhawk, for example, is also (to use the old phrase) "Level 0" or commoners. Just because it's a humanocentric campaign world doesn't mean that the PCs are all, or majority, human.

C. Different areas are, well, different. Greyhawk (free city) is not Rauxes.

The drow of Greyhawk, though, are especially thorny. There is no world where Wizards ever publishes another book where the drow are unmitigated, all-evil, all the time, antagonists. Would Greyhawk purists accept a more inclusive vision of Erelhei-Cinlu?

I don't know if I'm a purist, but I prefer Drow in Greyhawk as antagonists. This does not prevent drow PCs, but they aren't all cuddly and cute either.

But that's my view. That's not a dealbreaker for me.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I am often curious when people think that early D&D was not anthropocentric.

As you say AD&D 1e and the Greyhawk folio and boxed set are humanocentric in the sense that humans are far more numerous than any other sentient being. I think this is also true of OD&D, Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign, and the fantasy supplement for Chainmail. In their humanocentrism these worlds resemble Middle-Earth, the Hyborian Age, and Nehwon.

The world presented in B2 Keep on the Borderlands is different: "The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted. Always the forces of Chaos press upon its borders, seeking to enslave its populace, rape its riches, and steal its treasures. If it were not for a stout few, many in the Realm would indeed fall prey to the evil which surrounds them."

It’s more like Poul Anderson's Three Hearts & Three Lions:

[H]umans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them was almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants​

"[T]he world of Law—of man—is hemmed in with strangeness, like an island in the sea of the Middle World."

The 1e DMG is opposed to monstrous PCs but OD&D is not:

There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Balrog would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.​

​

Holmes Basic Set:

At the Dungeon Master's discretion a character can be anything his or her player wants him to be. Characters must always start out inexperienced and relatively weak and build on their experience. Thus, an expedition might include, in addition to the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, halflingish), a centaur, a lawful werebear, and a Japanese Samurai fighting man.​

Mike Mornard played a balrog in Gary Gygax’s Greyhawk campaign.

Prominent monsters and other evil beings were also player characters in Arneson’s Blackmoor campaign. Jon Peterson, Playing at the World:

In Blackmoor, as it was played in the Twin Cities, most of the Baddies were nominally under the control of players; the orcs in the dungeon beneath Castle Blackmoor, for example, were answerable to Fred Funk (King Fred I of the Orcs) and the Wizard who lurked in its darkest recesses was played by John Soukop.​

The infamous vampire Sir Fang played by David Fant is another example from Blackmoor.

Gary Gygax states that drow could be PCs as early as 1979. From the Sorcerer’s Scroll, Dragon #31: "The roles the various drow are designed to play in the series [the D1-3 modules] are commensurate with those of prospective player characters. In fact, the race could be used for player characters, providing that appropriate penalties were levied when a drow or half-drow was in the daylight world."

 

[TwoSix]

B. The adventuring party is special. Most of Greyhawk, for example, is also (to use the old phrase) "Level 0" or commoners. Just because it's a humanocentric campaign world doesn't mean that the PCs are all, or majority, human.

Here's a possibly more complex question; in a 5e reboot of Greyhawk, should there be guidelines pointing towards a more human-dominant PC party? Should there be explicit rules mandating such a party? Would softer rule support like giving humans additional bonuses be warranted?

 

[Mort]

I don't know if I'm a purist, but I prefer Drow in Greyhawk as antagonists. This does not prevent drow PCs, but they aren't all cuddly and cute either.

But that's my view. That's not a dealbreaker for me.

I see Drow as antagonists in Greyhawk but at the same time Drow as anything (antagonist, pc or whatever) is just played out for me. Very glad that no one in the group had any interest in playing one, and I don't plan to throw them in as any kind of villain this time around.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Here's a possibly more complex question; in a 5e reboot of Greyhawk, should there be guidelines pointing towards a more human-dominant PC party? Should there be explicit rules mandating such a party? Would softer rule support like giving humans additional bonuses be warranted?

Yes.
No.
Probably not.

To explain, I think that I should be clear that I, personally, think it would be pretty cool to be more explicit and encourage more humans as PCs (option 1).

But that's not a dealbreaker for me, and I know that there are many, many players out there that prefer to play something else, so I wouldn't mandate it (2).

I also don't know about additional bonuses, and think it's probably a bad idea (3).

But maybe if humans had (Greyhawk-specific) additional feats or backgrounds or something they could access, that would work. I don't know.

Or maybe something to at least explain the prevalence and power of humanity (such as it is) in the Flanaess. There are many different ways to approach it.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

When you look at the Named PCs that have come down to us from Gygax's original group, you've got Tenser, Mordenkainen, Rary, Robilar, Drawmij, Otiluke, Erac's Cousin, all humans. The only demihuman I could name is Melf. It's a tough call, as there's what the text intended and what people did with it. The two are different things, and it's thankfully not up to me to say which is more valid.

Also, just noticed the Naked Lunch reference in your title!

See, this is where I think we have to have some sort of divide between the way that tables played, and some textual support. Different tables played in all sorts of ways, and it's hard to generalize table experiences.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

When you look at the Named PCs that have come down to us from Gygax's original group, you've got Tenser, Mordenkainen, Rary, Robilar, Drawmij, Otiluke, Erac's Cousin, all humans. The only demihuman I could name is Melf. It's a tough call, as there's what the text intended and what people did with it. The two are different things, and it's thankfully not up to me to say which is more valid.

Also, just noticed the Naked Lunch reference in your title!

Smash the control images, smash the control machines.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I think this gets back to the main issue- that the world of Greyhawk (the Flanaess) is a human world, dominated by human politics, and that while a PC can be anything (from a centaur to a tortle) you will have to take this into account if you are playing in Greyhawk. Because Greyhawk is ... humanocentric. And race (or ancestry, or heritage, or species, or folk, or peoples, or whatever we end up calling it in the future) will matter.

I think that's the real problem right there - that many players want to have all the numbers and abilities that go with race/species/whatever, but don't (can't? aren't willing?) accept what else comes with it.

Anecdote: I ran a game set in a very human-dominated world (for example, less than 20,000 dwarves in the entire world). The five PCs included a genasi, a goliath, a gnome and a tiefling. The players actually complained to me as GM about the way their players were getting treated in towns.

Perhaps the rules of the game world need to point this out on the first few pages? "Hey, players! This world has far more <X> than any other sapient species. If you play as a <J>, <K> or especially as a <T>, your character will get harassed in the street, denied service in taverns, and gain extra attention from town guards. You Have Been Warned."

Preceded by a warning "This game world contains mature topics, including discrimination and persecution. If you can't handle these like a mature adult then please play D&D in a different campaign world."

With more or less snark depending on your preference.