OMG... you aren't *HUMAN*!!!

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't just hand out that second +2--players have to give up one human trait to get it--but my players still play demihumans exclusively. And this includes two average optimizers and one serious power gamer.

So, I'm guessing the player's motivations for playing non-humans then have little or nothing to do with mechanics. They simply WANT to play non-humans. IMHO bribing players to go with the DM's plan for things like this rarely works. Either the player does it and ends up playing a character that may not be what they were really interested in, or they just ignore the bribe and the whole thing doesn't work.

I would say you need STORY based reasons for PCs to play humans. Personally I would advise considering story based reasons. When I say this I don't mean "bartenders spit in the non-human's drinks" kind of thing. I mean make the central prophesy of the campaign relate to a human for instance. If humans really are the most important and central race of the setting then give them prime place. The players can be non-humans, but they will be taking on a different role in the overall story. It won't be an unimportant role or uninteresting role, it just may not be the starring role of the whole campaign arc.

If the campaign is more of a gritty intrigue type of game or something like that there may not be quite the same kind of central role that there could be in a story like say Restore the King or something like that. Still, a human PC could be the one that gets to take over an important organization, act as a key contact with a powerful patron, etc.

It can be tough to pull this off and not make it look like you're just giving the human character too much spotlight, but as long as the other's roles in the story are vital and the players get to scratch what itches them it works fine. They can each shine now and then.

 

[GameDoc]

Nothing is more infuriating then a DM who has a story he wants to tell, and damn the players who don't want to play along.

Some of my best experiences as a player have been with DM's who had an interesting plot line woven into the campaign.

Some of my worst experiences as a player have been with DM's so whetted to plot details that it allows for no player-character choices or impact on the outcome.


I don't think it's unfair for a DM to have a storyline, but it can be taken too far, such as when the players have no choices about how they handle a challenge, or the DM pulls out a dues-ex-machina to negate any significant impact the players had on the story.

Barring such a tyrannical DM though, I think it's incumbent on players to try and work with the basic plot hooks the DM throws out there. It's enough of a challenge for the guy or gal behind the screen to improv the dozens of little details that only come up with cooperative players.

There's no need to run the DM ragged by making him ad lib an entire adventure on the fly instead of the one he or she prepared for.That is unless that's your DM's approach to running a game, which can be fun too.

 

[gourdcaptain]

I'm fine with DM's having a party concept, as long as they declare it while recruiting for the game. See the low magic campaign idea a friend of mine had - all humans, all martial classes, inherent bonuses, no magic items.

If they spring it on you halfway through character generation, less fun.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Which traits are eligible for trade-in? Extra at-will? Extra feat? Extra skill training? +1 defenses?

Player's choice. Which would you choose?

So, I'm guessing the player's motivations for playing non-humans then have little or nothing to do with mechanics.

Like I said, one of my players is a serious power gamer and two others are average. I'm sure the "I'm a human in real life, I don't want to play one in a game" attitude plays a part with most players--except my power gamer. He's one of those charoppers who spends two weeks min/maxing his PC.

I give humans the second +2 option because it's psychologically meaningful, but won't make or break any PC. It's not my way of saying "I like humans, and I want everyone else to play one." I run a kitchen sink campaign, and humans are just one race of many.

 

[OhGodtheRats]

I'm a bit biased (Insert unnecessary link to Playing Evil Races article here) on this but here's my 2 pennies:

A lot of it depends on the experience of the players. 3 or so years ago I played my 1st game of Dungeons & Dragons. I was given access to a bottomless pit of 3.5 books, was told nothing of the campaign setting, and said "Find something cool". Not knowing what was normal, I showed up with a Kobold Alchemist+a Gnoll Diplomat (played later in 4E per above article). They were in the books & seemed kosher...I honestly didn't know a fantasy game wasn't about all the fantastic races. (Ended up playing a Half-Orc Fighter, my 1st D&D character ever.) Thing is if you look at the books, some of the freak races are right there....and you'd assumed it'd be just as kosher to play a Tiefling, Drow, or Dragonborn as it would to play an Elf, Extra-Dimensional Elf, or Hobbit. Just speaking as a recovering newbie/Outsider, I think racial diversity also is deeply affected by how long the player's been playing D&D. Sure, some folk are invariably drawn to the Freaky, but....
Well....I have friend who played World of Warcraft before playing D&D & don't see why some DMs have issue with inhuman races...hell, they're the majority, right? Or so the argument/rambling goes.

Just chiming. I'm NOT a Freak player by nature....I do understand the need to limit player choices so as not to upset the narrative. I'm just saying that when the new folks who show up to D&D encounters it's not so weird they don't realize a party composed completely of Shardminds, Minotaurs, & Tieflings might not be completely normal.

And thus my 2 cents.
Or theory.
I think.
-Jared

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I give humans the second +2 option because it's psychologically meaningful, but won't make or break any PC. It's not my way of saying "I like humans, and I want everyone else to play one." I run a kitchen sink campaign, and humans are just one race of many.

Eh, yeah, I agree it won't really break anything and if it makes things more fun for players then ANY house rule is a good one. I think maybe for whatever reason 4e humans have kind of gotten an unfairly low rating from optimizers though. Certainly at low heroic the extra feat, power, and skill are pretty darn handy. The new choice they get in Essentials is pretty nice. I probably wouldn't give them more bonuses in my game, but then again I don't really care what races players pick. Seems like a fun challenge to work out how the more unusual choices fit in.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Not knowing what was normal, I showed up with a Kobold Alchemist+a Gnoll Diplomat (played later in 4E per above article).

It's all a matter of perspective. How many of us remember showing up at a party dressed far too casually or formally because no one thought to tell us what type of party it was? (Never me, of course -- I'm always the belle of the ball.)

Your characters sound like fun. I'd love to see them in action.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Thing is if you look at the books, some of the freak races are right there....and you'd assumed it'd be just as kosher to play a Tiefling, Drow, or Dragonborn as it would to play an Elf, Extra-Dimensional Elf, or Hobbit. Just speaking as a recovering newbie/Outsider, I think racial diversity also is deeply affected by how long the player's been playing D&D. Sure, some folk are invariably drawn to the Freaky, but....
Well....I have friend who played World of Warcraft before playing D&D & don't see why some DMs have issue with inhuman races...hell, they're the majority, right?

So true. As I made my very first character way back in 2e, my D&D teacher told me "demihumans have cool abilities, but everybody hates them." Which was kinda true about elves--it seemed like half the MM had a vendetta against elves, for being the best PC race. Anyway, you're right that a player's pre-D&D background and their first DM play a big part in how they see humans and demihumans.

Eh, yeah, I agree it won't really break anything and if it makes things more fun for players then ANY house rule is a good one. I think maybe for whatever reason 4e humans have kind of gotten an unfairly low rating from optimizers though. Certainly at low heroic the extra feat, power, and skill are pretty darn handy. The new choice they get in Essentials is pretty nice. I probably wouldn't give them more bonuses in my game, but then again I don't really care what races players pick. Seems like a fun challenge to work out how the more unusual choices fit in.

It is possible that optimizers don't give humans enough credit; they do tend to focus on bonuses. And the lack of a +2 looks big, and throws some players off.

But I've also found that a lot of players give human 'versatility' too much credit. Yeah, humans are usually second-best at everything, which would be an advantage if D&D were a true wargame, but in reality is a worthless 'advantage' as soon as ya choose your class.

In summation, whatever I guess. To each their own.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is possible that optimizers don't give humans enough credit; they do tend to focus on bonuses. And the lack of a +2 looks big, and throws some players off.

But I've also found that a lot of players give human 'versatility' too much credit. Yeah, humans are usually second-best at everything, which would be an advantage if D&D were a true wargame, but in reality is a worthless 'advantage' as soon as ya choose your class.

In summation, whatever I guess. To each their own.

I think what I'm saying is that humans aren't particularly second best. Theorycraft simply favors straight numeric bonuses. In actual play humans advantages work quite well. My observation is that for many classes they are actually in any practical sense as good as the notionally 'best choice' race. This isn't true in all cases, but then again it is hard to quantify.

 

[Dice4Hire]

The nice thing about humans is that they are always a reasonable choice for any class. Sure, they are better at some and worse at others, but overall the yare good.

The reverse side is that generally each other race has one or a couple classes they are really good at, like Dragonborns to Paladins and Sorcerers.

But if you don't like that 'dominant' race, then humans are a good choice.

And if you don't like humans, then the later choices are usually quite inferior.