Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[Paul Farquhar]

Ironically, that's exactly what happens in Star Wars, a humanocentric saga where most main characters are humans, even though it takes place in a universe filled with thousands of different species.

Actually, it was intentional. Star Wars is not humancentric, even though most player characters are human. Firefly/Serenity is humancentric - everyone is human.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's an analogy. The world is the cantina. You have what? five? different alien races a couple of miles down the road in the Caves of Chaos alone. Everyone knows aliens exist, and live a few miles down the road. That's not humancentric. Humancentric is when the Caves of Chaos are full of human bandits. Humancentic is when over the course of several sessions the players may gradually learn of the existence of aliens, but no one believes them.

You're kind of inventing interpretations of humanocentric.

It just means humans are the main race. Other races exist but look at B2 do you see humanoids hanging out in the Keep?

2E DMG also explained it in regards to level limits.

It just really means humans are the center of the campaign. How that's executed various and most fantasy and sci fi things are humanocentric. They're the focus of the show.

Pretend ircs don't buy stuff. Humans do. That's why it's about relating to the audience.

Doesn't mean everything has to be humanocentric.

There's 4 core races. That the common assumption if default D&D. Humans are one if them.

If you don't include humans in a home game that's fine but it's not assumed for the average player.

 

[Zardnaar]

Actually, it was intentional. Star Wars is not humancentric, even though most player characters are human. Firefly/Serenity is humancentric - everyone is human.

That's not humanocentric in the context we're using. It's never meant non humans don't exist.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's not humanocentric in the context we're using. It's never meant non humans don't exist.

Firefly never said aliens don't exist. But if they do exist they don't show up in the show and no one knows about them. If it had lasted more than half a session maybe aliens would have shown up later. Also see: The Expanse.

You can have aliens in a humancentric setting, but they shouldn't be living a few miles down the road where everyone knows about them.

 

[Zardnaar]

Firefly never said aliens don't exist. But if they do exist they don't show up in the show and no one knows about them. If it had lasted more than half a session maybe aliens would have shown up later. Also see: The Expanse.

Not D&D doesn't matter. Generally a world/setting/franchise only has to be consistent with itself.

If they explore and discover aliens while building up to the idea that something is out there that's fine.

In D&D other stuff exists but you can't (generally) play a dragon. Replace Dragon with whatever.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Pretend ircs don't buy stuff. Humans do.

The whole plot of the Greyhawk set U1 hinges on "Pretend ircs" (avoiding spoilers) buying stuff from humans.

 

[Zardnaar]

The whole plot of the Greyhawk set U1 hinges on "Pretend ircs" (avoiding spoilers) buying stuff from humans.

So humanocentric doesn't mean the races don't interact non violently.
You can negotiate whatever you like with them, if they listen or not is another matter.

In old D&D reaction rolls were 2d6. If you had a +2 or +3 on your roll the odds of hitting the higher positive numbers jumped drastically.

Negotiating with orcs wasn't impossible it was hard.
IIRC Orcs had a penalty to charisma. Assuming the DM let you play one they would have a lot harder time talking their way out if a hostile situation.

DMs discretion if Orcs are allowed.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So humanocentric doesn't mean the races don't interact non violently.
You can negotiate whatever you like with them, if they listen or not is another matter.

Danger at Dunwater says they will listen, if the players don't mess things up. And following on from that it would make perfect sense for an alien to join the party, especially if they are going on to do U3.

 

[Zardnaar]

Danger at Dunwater says they will listen, if the players don't mess things up. And following on from that it would make perfect sense for an alien to join the party, especially if they are going on to do U3.

Up to the DM that one.

Having PCs go out and discover stuff is a better way of doing it than shoehorning stuff in.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Also if everyone starts doing that eventually you'll have no PCs left from the original party which might be an issue.

 

[Hussar]

The cantina is a metaphor. The world is the cantina. You have what? five? different alien races a couple of miles down the road in the Caves of Chaos alone. Everyone knows aliens exist, and live a few miles down the road. That's not humancentric. Humancentric is when the Caves of Chaos are full of human bandits. Humancentric is when over the course of several sessions the players may gradually learn of the existence of aliens, but no one believes them.

Y'know, this is a point. And probably why everyone tends to talk past each other. When @Paul Farquhar talks about humanocentric, he seems to be referencings settings like Hyboria. Yes, there are non-humans in the setting, but, they are very, very few and far between. There are entire Conan stories where no non-humans appear. By this definition, something like John Carter, Warlord of Mars would not be humanocentric, simply because the only human in the stories is John Carter.

OTOH, @Zardnaar is referring to the protagonists. It's humanocentric, so long as the protagonists are human (or at least mostly human). So, Warlord of Mars becomes Humanocentric in this definition because John Carter is the protagonist. A campaign is humanocentric, regardless of the broader setting, so long as the PC's are (mostly) human.

Makes for an interesting comparison really. Is Star Wars Humanocentric? How about Lord of the Rings? According to @Zardnaar's definition, LotR and most certainly The Hobbit is very much not humanocentric. There are almost no human characters at all. OTOH, according to @Paul Farquhar, the setting of Middle Earth is pretty solidly humanocentric. Other than a few conclaves of non-humans, nearly everyone in Middle Earth is human. Or, take the two views of Greyhawk. Because of the1e rules, most groups tended to be heavily weighted towards humans. But, the setting certainly skew that way - there are tons of non-humans all over the place. Since we're not playing by 1e rules anymore, I'm not sure if that skewing really applies.

It might be more useful to be a bit more specific in what you mean by humanocentric. Because, at it stands, the two of you are just talking past each other.