Question on fantasy races

[Turjan]

I find it hilarious that, in this day and age, an entire gaming group will shut down because the DM says "no" about the OPTION to choose one race, even if no one in said group will choose it.

I don't find that hilarious. Human is not just some race, it's what you already are. This is about the question how fantastic you want your fantasy to be. I'm fine if a player just wants to play him- or herself in an exotic environment with exotic tools of trade. If that's what makes them have fun, so be it.

In the end, most players treat different races as some kind of costume, anyway, thus it isn't a big loss.

 

[jsears2002]

Well, since my gaming group consists of my wife (who is new to gaming), my brother in law and his wife, I have the option of making what I want and like and then, if it comes out good, they can take it or not. If it gets real good, maybe I'll put it up on a website for others to use.

Right now, just want to figure out what I like.

I was referred to the "Orcs" books that have come out if I want a new perspective on Orcs as a culture, not just faceless targets of encounters in my games.

 

[Mercule]

In the end, most players treat different races as some kind of costume, anyway, thus it isn't a big loss.

This. If the race is, basically, rural humans with pointy ears or short, grumpy humans or some such, there's no point. IME, this is the way most people play most races.

Right now, I'm running an Eberron game with an eladrin, a dragonborn, a warforged, and two halflings. One of the halflings plays up the race and the dragonborn uses her breath weapon every combat. I play up the warforged bit, but the player continues to walk into taverns and expects a normal reaction. Otherwise, there's absolutely no real reflection of the races in how they're played.

Personally, I don't think you need non-human races in fantasy. Don't get me wrong... I prefer them to exist and even be PC options. But, I'm very much a fan of Gygax's humanocentric flavor. This is probably best represented in the "guideline" I enacted for my previous campaign: There must be more human PCs than non-human PCs (i.e. 50% or more) and no more than one of any non-human race. Of course, I also did my work and delved into what it meant to be an elf, the race's origins, traditions, etc. and how those would have impacted an elf growing up. I didn't force the player to adhere to a "stock" elf, but I was fairly clear about when she was acting against her upbringing. Lots of fun was had in exploring those ideas, too.

You don't have to do a lot of racial navel-gazing, and I wouldn't expect it to be a constant theme -- I'm not pointing at bad-wrong-fun. But, I do think races should be something other than stat bonuses and an encounter power.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

But, I do think races should be something other than stat bonuses and an encounter power.

Though you could have this by not giving the race stat bonuses and an encounter power. I know the idea doesn't work for all races, but I once read someone's post which suggested that a race didn't need to have racial ability adjustments just guideline (not hard limits, I must point out). For at least the traditional core races of D&D this could simply be based on the choices of human bonus feats and skill point allocation. Perhaps a bit oddly in the case of halflings and gnomes, but still more or less functional.

I didn't force the player to adhere to a "stock" elf, but I was fairly clear about when she was acting against her upbringing. Lots of fun was had in exploring those ideas, too.

This may actually be a draw for playing a non-human: the idea that you're wearing a perceived stereotype which you can then break out of. Plays to the desire to assert one's individuality.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I find it hilarious that, in this day and age, an entire gaming group will shut down because the DM says "no" about the OPTION to choose one race, even if no one in said group will choose it.

I don't think it would happen if I eliminated Dwarves or Elves, though. Humans- because we are they and them is us- are different.

Do you, at least, put them in your setting in an area where there is little/no humanity?

Well, the last long-running campaign I ran featured precisely 1 gnome, 3 human, 2 elves and 1 half elf in the entire world (dimension-hopping was involved).

Originally, I was going to start the players off in this world in which none of the traditional races were available, but the impending rebellion forced me to a more traditional launching point.

And actually, it worked out for the better. The players had the PCs they wanted, and the initial encounter that led to them crossing dimensional boundaries actually cemented the party together in ways I hadn't expected.

So that kind of refusal doesn't bug me- I just take it as an opportunity to raise my game as a GM.

 

[Salamandyr]

An all non-human campaign might be interesting. But one where humans were an enemy, or worse, the primary enemy, just sounds too much like an exercise in self-loathing for me to want to participate.

 

[jsears2002]

I was discussing the topic with a friend IRL, who had been my DM for a while when I was younger. He talked about one of his DMs making a campaign where humans existed, but asked his players to not choose human. There was a little complaining, but the players agreed.

As their campaign started, everyone had finished their drinks and went to the inns to fall asleep. Each character had strange dreams, different depending on the race. When they awoke the next morning, they found corpses inside the tavern, scattered all over. This also held true when they walked outside for the first time that day. It took a little while for one of them to notice, every corpse was human. Something went through and killed all the humans in the campaign world.

I guess this way they exist, but you could run a campaign without them and, depending on how you end the campaign and the players' actions, the humans could come back and exist in the future of the world.

 

[Herobizkit]

Making the humans the primary enemy is exactly what happened in, say, Avatar. And grumble if you will - I loooooove that movie's story. Now, imagine the same situation, except the humans don't try to learn about the alien race... they just watn to move in, kill things and take the alien's stuff. (In my head, I swapped Wild Elf in for the blue race).

Humans are prolific, greedy, and tenacious. They are also a blight on the natural order of the world. Now imagine what other races might do to stop the encroaching of the hairless apes.

If a player still wants to play a human at this point, he is a glutton for punishment, and good for him. In essence, this is no different than a player wanting to play a goblin (or even a *shudder* Drow) in a humanocentric game.

In the end, I believe it boils down to gaming taste.

 

[jsears2002]

That is quite an interesting way to look at things. I too loved the story of that movie - and almost any race could be thrown in for our blue friends there. (It could be scary if wild elves shot arrows that were bigger than humans are tall.)

 

[Set]

And allow orcs and goblinoids and whatnot as PC races.

One of the coolest 3.5 parties I played in consisted of an ex-slave hobgoblin chain-fighter (using the same chains he used to wear as weapons), a goblin wizard (pyromancy-nut, lived by the alchemical fire, died by the alchemical fire...), a red-furred female bugbear rogue (surprisingly sneaky for her size!), a lizardfolk shaman (with a monitor lizard companion), a mute orc tattooed monk and a fanatical dragon-worshipping kobold cleric who insisted that he was a dragon cursed to live as a kobold (or reincarnated into a kobold, or a dragon transformed into a kobold form willingly, because of losing a bet. His story changed every time he told it...).