What is the attraction?
- Thread starter Limper
- Start date
ForceUser
Explorer
I'll be honest. Most of my characters are human because I like the extra feat and skill points. That's it. My highest character is an elf, though. In that particular campaign, I just wanted to be something alien/exotic since all the other players were human, and elves were mysterious (still are, actually, I keep my secrets well 
)
)
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
You know, Limper, on the *balance* issue, I have listened to many scream about "This isn't balanced" or "These creatures are way too powerful" or "This race is too weak. They're pathetic" and so on. Yet, when I come up with a particular race, that, apart from cultural considerations, demands that they have certain stats, feats, or abilities, I find that when I try and water them down so that they are *balanced*, stat-wise, in order to preserve the whole "Well, why would anyone want to play a human?" syndrome, I find oftentimes that the race becomes so divorced from the original creative concept that it isn't much different from any other standard, non-human race.
And for what? So that I can avoid having some frothing at the mouth uber-power-gamer never play humans, because the other races clearly have higher stats?
I say too bad. Humans--or any other race--should be played because you have a particular character concept in mind--regardless of what the stat-bonuses, or stat-penalties may be.
For example, in my campaigns, I have a different take on Ogres. Ogres aren't terribly smart, but they are incredibly strong and powerful. I have players that like to play Ogres not necessarily because of their stat-bonuses, but because they like the cultural and psychological framework that Ogres in my campaigns have. It is those role-playing details that really make the race interesting to play. The stats, while important, do not *make* the character. Do I care that humans have no strength stat bonuses, and I give Ogres a (+10) strength modifier? No! The reason I assign Ogres (+10) Strength modifier is because it is realistic and appropriate for the race--as I see them--to be far more strong and powerful than humans. If the "human" players don't like that, well, too bad! You know? Ogres also don't make the best Wizards, and their personalities, and psychology simply preclude certain character types. You want to play an Ogre-Rogue, who is a raider? Fine, but as a player, don't expect to play a thief-type Rogue as an Ogre, because not only will the Ogre's penalties to DEX and INT inhibit the character, as DM, I would strongly question even allowing the character to ever learn such skills. The reason being, almost regardless of the actual intelligence score that the character might have, that intelligence is focused differently, in different ways, no matter what the score. Ogres simply have the hardest time even conceptualizing such skills, or the process of employing them. That, however, is a DM-imposed role-playing restriction, and I have no problem enforcing it. That is just the way the race works. There are many different approaches that a player can reasonably take an Ogre character in, but an athletic, technically skilled thief-Rogue isn't one of them.
But that is the dreaded, broken, "Role-playing" balance factor that so many say doesn't work, so therefore, if I was a slave to *balance*--I would reduce the Ogre drastically across the board in many ways, in order to be compliant, and to make sure the uber-power-gamers wouldn't be too keen on taking the Ogre as a race for their character instead of a standard human.
Do you see my friend?
It gets frustrating sometimes, but hell, I'm the DM, so I make it work because I say so, you know?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You know, Limper, on the *balance* issue, I have listened to many scream about "This isn't balanced" or "These creatures are way too powerful" or "This race is too weak. They're pathetic" and so on. Yet, when I come up with a particular race, that, apart from cultural considerations, demands that they have certain stats, feats, or abilities, I find that when I try and water them down so that they are *balanced*, stat-wise, in order to preserve the whole "Well, why would anyone want to play a human?" syndrome, I find oftentimes that the race becomes so divorced from the original creative concept that it isn't much different from any other standard, non-human race.
And for what? So that I can avoid having some frothing at the mouth uber-power-gamer never play humans, because the other races clearly have higher stats?
I say too bad. Humans--or any other race--should be played because you have a particular character concept in mind--regardless of what the stat-bonuses, or stat-penalties may be.
For example, in my campaigns, I have a different take on Ogres. Ogres aren't terribly smart, but they are incredibly strong and powerful. I have players that like to play Ogres not necessarily because of their stat-bonuses, but because they like the cultural and psychological framework that Ogres in my campaigns have. It is those role-playing details that really make the race interesting to play. The stats, while important, do not *make* the character. Do I care that humans have no strength stat bonuses, and I give Ogres a (+10) strength modifier? No! The reason I assign Ogres (+10) Strength modifier is because it is realistic and appropriate for the race--as I see them--to be far more strong and powerful than humans. If the "human" players don't like that, well, too bad! You know? Ogres also don't make the best Wizards, and their personalities, and psychology simply preclude certain character types. You want to play an Ogre-Rogue, who is a raider? Fine, but as a player, don't expect to play a thief-type Rogue as an Ogre, because not only will the Ogre's penalties to DEX and INT inhibit the character, as DM, I would strongly question even allowing the character to ever learn such skills. The reason being, almost regardless of the actual intelligence score that the character might have, that intelligence is focused differently, in different ways, no matter what the score. Ogres simply have the hardest time even conceptualizing such skills, or the process of employing them. That, however, is a DM-imposed role-playing restriction, and I have no problem enforcing it. That is just the way the race works. There are many different approaches that a player can reasonably take an Ogre character in, but an athletic, technically skilled thief-Rogue isn't one of them.
But that is the dreaded, broken, "Role-playing" balance factor that so many say doesn't work, so therefore, if I was a slave to *balance*--I would reduce the Ogre drastically across the board in many ways, in order to be compliant, and to make sure the uber-power-gamers wouldn't be too keen on taking the Ogre as a race for their character instead of a standard human.
Do you see my friend?
It gets frustrating sometimes, but hell, I'm the DM, so I make it work because I say so, you know?Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hey, i've always played humans, its just now its worth it, system-wise!
I can't can't really put it in words why i always play humans. Non-humans just always seem too fake to me, i guess. The standard D&D races definitely irratate me. I've always preferred utility type characters, though, so maybe thats why humans hit the spot with me.
I just thought i'd give a reverse angle look at the question.
I can't can't really put it in words why i always play humans. Non-humans just always seem too fake to me, i guess. The standard D&D races definitely irratate me. I've always preferred utility type characters, though, so maybe thats why humans hit the spot with me.
I just thought i'd give a reverse angle look at the question.
Why do people play different races? It allows them to more easily feel they are playing something different than themselves. Obviously the average gamer is much different than, say, a professional soccer player, or a warlord in the Sudan, or a rice farmer in China. It's pretty easy to imagine a human that's nothing like you. But for many people, playing a different race allows them to feel like they are playing something entirely different than human.
It's easy to make a human that's an earthy crunchy tree-hugger. But playing that same character type as an elf, that introduces an element of the fantastical that a lot of people dig.
Cullain
It's easy to make a human that's an earthy crunchy tree-hugger. But playing that same character type as an elf, that introduces an element of the fantastical that a lot of people dig.
Cullain
Limper said:
Now that you mention it, there is another reason for playing humans... you see, I started playing at the age of 10 with friends who were used to speaking in English, and at that time,we had only OD&D. Guess the fact that demihumans were technically multiclassed human chars didn't really appeal of us.
However, when I got to secondary school (I think that's high school in your terms), my group was almost completely Malay and we gamed in Malay. Some concepts were hard to translate/introduce to them due to the language barrier and I decided to leave demihumans out of the mix until we got more comfortable with the system. Well, one thing led to another and we finished 3 yrs of campaigning without demihumans. Since we went to different classes after our 3rd year of schooling, we couldn't keep running campaigns anymore so no demihumans were ever introduced. I guess I got more and more comfortable with humans as a player race after that.
Doc_Subtlety
First Post
I play nonhumans because sometimes they help make a character concept work better for me.
For example, I was making a Knight of Pelor, some weeks ago. He was supposed to be big (Str 16), smart (Int 14), but with absolutely no tact or visible compassion (Cha 8). He was willing to give his life to protect others, but that didn't equal being sunny and bright.
I could've made him a human. He was supposed to look like one, give or take - fit with his "knight in shining armor" motif.
However, I decided to make him a half elf: just hung his attitude problem to his mixed heritage. He didn't fit in anyplace, and he simply never learned to make friends very well. Made him bitter. Plus, he was about 60, and looked half that - all his original human friends were dead or dying, and it had really gotten to him.
After that, it wasn't hard to figure out the rest of the character.
*shrugs*
SHARK:
(Was fun in other systems like that, though. I can't remember ever playing a balanced game of Marvel. )
For example, I was making a Knight of Pelor, some weeks ago. He was supposed to be big (Str 16), smart (Int 14), but with absolutely no tact or visible compassion (Cha 8). He was willing to give his life to protect others, but that didn't equal being sunny and bright.
I could've made him a human. He was supposed to look like one, give or take - fit with his "knight in shining armor" motif.
However, I decided to make him a half elf: just hung his attitude problem to his mixed heritage. He didn't fit in anyplace, and he simply never learned to make friends very well. Made him bitter. Plus, he was about 60, and looked half that - all his original human friends were dead or dying, and it had really gotten to him.
After that, it wasn't hard to figure out the rest of the character.
*shrugs*
SHARK:
That works for some groups, and not for others. I wouldn't be able to get away with running a game like that, at the moment. Not under D&D.
(Was fun in other systems like that, though. I can't remember ever playing a balanced game of Marvel.
)SHARK said:
Fair enough. Funny you should mention that, though, because the thing is that D&D finally has a mechanic to accommodate races that are more powerful than the norm -- ECL. If you want to have an uber-race, just slap on a big ECL, and everything's good.
Not that this is really relevant to your campaign, because from what I've seen, everyone (even the commoners) would probably be 6th-7th level anyway. Balance isn't an issue if everyone is as uber as everyone else.
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
Black Omega, hong, Limper----
Next time I'll put this disclaimer on my post to avoid confusion:
DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion and it can't be right or wrong because it is a matter of personal taste that I do not mean to apply to everyone else's matters of personal taste. You can think whatever you want and it is not wrong.
See disclaimer.
I'm going to assume that you did not mean this as an insult. Please clarify.
Yup. Boring. Neat as a one shot campaign, kinda like Paranoia, but long term CoC characters or plots are not fun for me.
But they have everything to do with limiting options. I'd rather play a world with more options than less.
They are great worlds, but they are ineffective at keeping my interest because the options are fewer than other settings.
I disagree entirely with this. You are making it sound as if anybody who is choosing a demihuman is doing so because of laziness. Bull pucky.
And I disagree entirely that humans do not have a concept. It's called "humans are versatile". You can play a human with no background just as easily as playing an elf with no background.
Elf: "I'm from the forest."
Human: "I'm from the forest."
Done.
Powers predefined, yes. Personalities, no.
So you are saying that humans do not have a stereotype? What about human versatility as a stereotype?
Or you see neither stereotype and play whatever the heck you want.
Bull pucky. You're thinking in 2ED terms. Humans have some neat abilities now. Extra skill points, an extra feat and any favored class are kinda neat.
See disclaimer.
Next time I'll put this disclaimer on my post to avoid confusion:
DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion and it can't be right or wrong because it is a matter of personal taste that I do not mean to apply to everyone else's matters of personal taste. You can think whatever you want and it is not wrong.
See disclaimer.
I'm going to assume that you did not mean this as an insult. Please clarify.
Yup. Boring. Neat as a one shot campaign, kinda like Paranoia, but long term CoC characters or plots are not fun for me.
But they have everything to do with limiting options. I'd rather play a world with more options than less.
They are great worlds, but they are ineffective at keeping my interest because the options are fewer than other settings.
I disagree entirely with this. You are making it sound as if anybody who is choosing a demihuman is doing so because of laziness. Bull pucky.
And I disagree entirely that humans do not have a concept. It's called "humans are versatile". You can play a human with no background just as easily as playing an elf with no background.
Elf: "I'm from the forest."
Human: "I'm from the forest."
Done.
Powers predefined, yes. Personalities, no.
So you are saying that humans do not have a stereotype? What about human versatility as a stereotype?
Or you see neither stereotype and play whatever the heck you want.
Bull pucky. You're thinking in 2ED terms. Humans have some neat abilities now. Extra skill points, an extra feat and any favored class are kinda neat.
See disclaimer.
Similar Threads
