Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[Zardnaar]

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.

LotR is still humanocentric the Hobbits are a very small part if the world.

Drizzt novels are also humanocentric at least outside Menzo.

He's an outsider in a human world and I think Sojourn us a great example if what a Drow can expect to face on GH/FR. Eberron not so much.

He couldn't exactly walk into a tavern or a lit if cities early on.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

Sure. But now humans are sitting down drinking tea with people far more alien than an orc. And it's only episode 2. That's a lot more Star Trek than Firefly.

Sure, there are degrees of humancentricity, but for people who want a Game-of-Thrones type experience from their D&D Greyhawk goes nothing like far enough.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure. But now humans are sitting down drinking tea with people far more alien than an orc. And it's only episode 2. That's a lot more Star Trek than Firefly.

Sure, there are degrees of humancentricity, but for people who want a Game-of-Thrones type experience from their D&D Greyhawk goes nothing like far enough.

D&D us bad for Game if Thrones type world.

2E using a lot of optional rules is the only D&D that could come close. D&D is D&D.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

D&D us bad for Game if Thrones type world.

You can get a lot of the way there by changing from "you can't play a reptile person because the DM says so" to "you can't play a reptile person because they don't exist [lie]".

 

[Zardnaar]

You can get a lot of the way there by changing from "you can't play a reptile person because the DM says so" to "you can't play a reptile person because they don't exist [lie]".

Doesn't really matter why. Reptile people can be excluded for multiple reasons.

1. DM doesn't like them.
2. They don't exist
3. They're antagonists
4. DM wants a different tone
5. DM wants to spotlight different races
6. DM worldbuilding, wants players to focus on that
7. War
Etc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Doesn't really matter why. Reptile people can be excluded for multiple reasons.

1. DM doesn't like them.
2. They don't exist
3. They're antagonists
4. DM wants a different tone
5. DM wants to spotlight different races
6. DM worldbuilding, wants players to focus on that
7. War
Etc.

"Reptile Person" in this context simply means "not a human".

The first thing to do if you want a setting that will appeal to GoT fans is to say is humans are the only confirmed intelligent race on the planet. Everything (other than beasts) in the Monster Manual is mythical, and doesn't exist until the PCs encounter it.

That would be far more interesting than a world that differs from Forgotten Realms only by the DM being stricter with PC races.

 

[Zardnaar]

"Reptile Person" in this context simply means "not a human".

The first thing to do if you want a setting that will appeal to GoT fans is to say is humans are the only confirmed intelligent race on the planet. Everything (other than beasts) in the Monster Manual is mythical, and doesn't exist until the PCs encounter it.

That would be far more interesting than a world that differs from Forgotten Realms only by the DM being stricter with PC races.

If that's what the DM wants sure.

D&D dies have some baseline assumptions. 4 races, MM, DMG.
Doesn't bother me if you deviate from that but the further you deviate from it it's better off in a campaign setting.

I like Darksun for example, I wouldn't add DS stuff to the PHB in any serious way.

 

[Hussar]

LotR is still humanocentric the Hobbits are a very small part if the world.

Drizzt novels are also humanocentric at least outside Menzo.

He's an outsider in a human world and I think Sojourn us a great example if what a Drow can expect to face on GH/FR. Eberron not so much.

He couldn't exactly walk into a tavern or a lit if cities early on.

Sorry, but there are a number of different posters in the thread, so maybe I've confused you with someone else, but, wasn't your pre-requisite for humanocentric that the majority of the party are human? Or have I confused you with someone else?

The Hobbit has no humans in the party. How is that possibly a humanocentric story?

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

If that's what the DM wants sure.

D&D dies have some baseline assumptions. 4 races, MM, DMG.
Doesn't bother me if you deviate from that but the further you deviate from it it's better off in a campaign setting.

I like Darksun for example, I wouldn't add DS stuff to the PHB in any serious way.

The Urban dictionary defines humanocentricity as a human centred world view which relegates all other lifeforms as being secondary and much more inferior.

If you translate that view to a D&D setting, it doesn't prevent the existence of non- humans in the setting but it will make playing a non-human really difficult. In settings such as Forgotten Realms this would reflect trying to play a race such as a goblin or orc in 'non-enlightened' areas such as Waterdeep. More enlightened lands such as Zakhara or the Wildemount setting would not have such a strong humanocentric view.

However, by the definition provided, no official D&D setting is truly humanocentric otherwise you could not really play non-humans without having a miserable play experience. And who wants that?

 

[Don Durito]

I would think of your typical humanocentric fantasy world this way:

You have a series of kingdoms and cultures. Most of these are human cultures and kingdoms. The Dwarves have one or two mountain cities somewhere but there in a great minority. Elves, live in forests somewhere, halfings presumably live somewhere but don't really have anywhere in particular. Gnomes? Who cares about gnomes?

Humans drive the world, and most of it's history.

Greyhawk by these lights is humanocentric. Grey box Forgotten realms was humanocentric, although it became somewhat less so over later editions. Birthright is definitiely humanocentric, so is Dark Sun - at least to the degree that it's main drivers of civilisation are city dwelling humans. Midgard, is not particularly, although humans are still probably the most prevalent race.

Interestingly, D&D settings have tended to become less humanocentric over time while fantasy literature has actually gone the other way and mostly dropped even the tolkien inspired races.