What is the attraction?

[der_kluge]

If you're going to eliminate all the races, except humans, you might as well just go a step further to make everyone play male characters, since having female characters instantly doubles the diversity and complexity.

You could limit the classes to just warrior, too. And make the only armor scale mail, and the only weapon long sword. Then, to close the deal, eliminate alignment, since that's too troublesome.

Then you've got a party of male fighters with long swords wearing scale mail. Woot!

 

[Doc_Subtlety]

ConcreteBuddha:

They are great worlds, but they are ineffective at keeping my interest because the options are fewer than other settings.

It's funny, but I like them for exactly the opposite reason: they increase my options.

IMO, there's more to making a game interesting than the character. The setting has to be fun, too. Frankly, I wouldn't still be playing D&D if I could get a break from generic Tolkien ripoff stuff. The Scarred Lands books were the first real fun I remember having with 3E, and my group has done a lot with the Worldbuilder's Handbook since then.

And if playing someplace weird means I need to be a human, or a lizard man, or whatever...I say, "Who cares?" Followed closely by, "What's over that hill?"

But, to each their own. If you can still have fun wherever you are, you shouldn't change it. Just remember this, if the place ever gets stale.


die_kluge:

If you're going to eliminate all the races, except humans, you might as well just go a step further to make everyone play male characters, since having female characters instantly doubles the diversity and complexity.

If you're gonna make such broad, sweeping oversimplifications, you might as well not say anything at all.

(Kidding - but I hope you see what I mean.)

 

[KnowTheToe]

If you're going to eliminate all the races, except humans, you might as well just go a step further to make everyone play male characters, since having female characters instantly doubles the diversity and complexity.

You could limit the classes to just warrior, too. And make the only armor scale mail, and the only weapon long sword. Then, to close the deal, eliminate alignment, since that's too troublesome.

Then you've got a party of male fighters with long swords wearing scale mail. Woot!

Great Idea, now I know what to do with my next campaign!!!!!

 

[alsih2o]

limper,

whether you have gotten an answer that satisfies your curiosity or not i would definetly say you have hit a nerve with SOME gamers.


and that says alot.

i thought this was a silly question when i first read the post, seeing the reaction and a SMALL insight into demihuman player psychology has been cool tho.

hats off to a coll thread.

 

[drothgery]

Worlds where humans are the only race bore me to tears. I can't stand WoT and Rokugan. (Even though Ogiers, Ratlings and Naga are all included, the main focus of these games are the human cultures. And having more than one of these races in a party kind of defeats the purpose of the campaign world. When we attempted WoT, four people wanted to play Ogiers.)

Heh. There are far more differences among the Arafellian, Andoran, Domani, Ebou Dari, Murandian, Sheinaran, and Tairen in my WoT game (and the NPC Tar Valoner Aes Sedai) than there have been among the elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and humans in the D&D games I've run, at least in terms of how they're played (rather than stats and special abilities). And I don't have anything really exotic for WoT in my game, like an Ogier, Aiel, Sea Folk, or Seanchan character.

 

[Humanophile]

Well, I've been a humans-only fan since way back when. The mood settled in after I realized that the demihumans would be hard for humans like us to get properly into the heads of, while most of the demihuman players I knew were just in it for the powers or panache. Plus I'm the player who'll play something weaker just to be "different", and I was aware that humans were the exception in most games I played.

That said, I see a few reasons for demihuman fans to play them primarily, and sadly "because I want to make a well done creature with an alien mindset" tends not to be one of them. (I suppose there are people out there who can pull it off, but it requires a high level of concentration and work, and most gamers I know of aren't into gaming as psychotherapy or art.) Some people like the cool powers attached, and others like the image that comes with it. (Let's face it, elves and the like are just plain cooler than plain old mundane humans. And players are usually intent on playing the coolest hero they can cobble together, granted that different players have different ideas of "cool".) And sometimes there's just the thrill of having a new toy, when a new race or class comes out, and people want to play it just to do something different than the basic 13 classes, 7 races. Demihumans are different and have more of a baseline to work with or against in roleplaying style, and are just another tool in the minmaxers toolbox.

 

[JohnClark]

My current character is a gnome techsmith, and I'm really enjoying playing him. The gnomes, I think, are sort of the forgotten race of dnd, and I really like their culture and their personalities. I really enjoy playing the race for the role-playing aspects. Although I did have a really cool drow ninja for a short evil campaign we did once.

I just think the non-human races are enjoyable because for some of us who aren't terribly creative it gives us a good way to roleplay, and also you always have something to talk about with npc's, because most are humans. And since their are virtually no gnome npc's, I have alot to talk about.

 

[hong]

If you're going to eliminate all the races, except humans, you might as well just go a step further to make everyone play male characters, since having female characters instantly doubles the diversity and complexity.

Well, there's a bit of a difference. See, elves are make-believe creatures, and don't really exist except in the imagination of some fevered roleplayers. Women, on the other hand --

hmm.

What exactly are you saying?