Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7213689" data-attributes="member: 29398">First off, let me say I'm fully in favour of the human-centric approach.That said, a few suggestions: in session 0 have each player generate two characters.&nbsp; One must be human, the other can be whatever (including human again of course).&nbsp; They can choose the race of the &quot;whatever&quot; character from a list you supply (sounds like it'd just be dwarf-elf-hobbit).&nbsp; A player who wants to get into the uncommon* list - and maybe not everyone will - gets a d4 roll with a '1' allowing access to a second, longer list you also supply.Each player can play one of the two characters thus generated; the other is on standby if needed as a replacement.* - were it me, based on what I've seen played over the years I'd probably move part-elf up from uncommon to common; obviously your experiences may differ from mine.What, and not jump right into adventuring the same evening? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In fairness this would depend on where they are in the game world, wouldn't it?&nbsp; If they happen to be somewhere that's 1000 miles away from the nearest human settlement but where elves and dwarves are common... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />None of which are races I'd even allow.The other way to beat the &quot;zoo&quot; problem is, of course, to simply limit allowable PC races to a short list (human-dwarf-elf-gnome-hobbit-partelf-partorc has done me for decades) and have done with it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lan-&quot;also make any party NPC adventurers human when you can, to add to the human-centric feel&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7213689, member: 29398"] First off, let me say I'm fully in favour of the human-centric approach. That said, a few suggestions: in session 0 have each player generate two characters. One must be human, the other can be whatever (including human again of course). They can choose the race of the "whatever" character from a list you supply (sounds like it'd just be dwarf-elf-hobbit). A player who wants to get into the uncommon* list - and maybe not everyone will - gets a d4 roll with a '1' allowing access to a second, longer list you also supply. Each player can play one of the two characters thus generated; the other is on standby if needed as a replacement. * - were it me, based on what I've seen played over the years I'd probably move part-elf up from uncommon to common; obviously your experiences may differ from mine. What, and not jump right into adventuring the same evening? :) In fairness this would depend on where they are in the game world, wouldn't it? If they happen to be somewhere that's 1000 miles away from the nearest human settlement but where elves and dwarves are common... :) None of which are races I'd even allow. The other way to beat the "zoo" problem is, of course, to simply limit allowable PC races to a short list (human-dwarf-elf-gnome-hobbit-partelf-partorc has done me for decades) and have done with it. :) Lan-"also make any party NPC adventurers human when you can, to add to the human-centric feel"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification