D&D General No Humans? (Well, the players... but that's it.)

[ezo]

We're developing a medieval "swords and sorcery" fantasy RPG, with more emphasis on the "fantasy" than the medieval, and we have seven new custom races so it won't be the typical elf, dwarf, halfling, etc. But, it got us thinking, do we even still want humans in the game?

So, I'm just doing a simple poll on it. Would you play in an RPG without human PCs or NPCs?

Thanks, and for any feedback you have on it.

EDIT: changed the "medieval" tag to "swords and sorcery" to separate it from any historical reference or context to the real world.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Before I die I want to play Burrows and Bunnies.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Given how often I play games without any human characters this would hardly be a change for me. (They're not rare, but "no human pcs" isn't uncommon either.)

 

[ezo]

Given how often I play games without any human characters this would hardly be a change for me. (They're not rare, but "no human pcs" isn't uncommon either.)

We've done a lot of games without a human PC, but just by player choices --- this will also include the peoples of the game world, no humans at all. Have you done that?

 

[payn]

I’m often disappointed in the background work and mechanics of fantasy ancestries, species etc.. no human option would be a bummer.

 

[jmartkdr2]

We've done a lot of games without a human PC, but just by player choices --- this will also include the peoples of the game world, no humans at all. Have you done that?

Not officially?

But I have a dm that likes dragonborn so we'll go a long time without meeting a human npc. If the only change was "no humans" it would be a while before we even noticed.

But if the game pitch is "you all have to play either tabaxi or aarakokra," or any other random list of approved races, I'm game. It sounds like a nice change of pace from the more typical "everyone's a human except the pc's" that I used to deal with a lot.

 

[ezo]

I’m often disappointed in the background work and mechanics of fantasy ancestries, species etc.. no human option would be a bummer.

Fair point! So, what if you don't mind elaborating is it that leaves you disappointed?

We are very much focusing on making our races much, much more than just "humans in funny masks".

 

[aco175]

It might be hard to have a baseline, or are the dominant 'not-human' race just going to act like humans? In a world where there are not any other human-like races like elves, dwarves and halflings I wonder what races fill the gaps. I voted yes, but now I wonder if I would. I think part of it is playing something I can relate to, or at least sort of relate to.

 

[ezo]

or are the dominant 'not-human' race just going to act like humans?

Not if we can help it!

I wonder what races fill the gaps.

What gaps?

I think part of it is playing something I can relate to, or at least sort of relate to.

That is probably our biggest concern. I totally get that, and mostly I play dwarves (I'm short-ish and hairy LOL).

Probably the most "human" race we have is basically a type of "cyclops", but medium-size and not quite as brutish as cyclops are typically portrayed. Some of the others a much more "alien" and probably more suitable to something like Star Wars.

 

[Yaarel]

I would play in an only-Human setting or a no-Human setting. No problem.