Pathfinder 1E What race would you choose to dominate a setting.

[Omegaxicor]

I'm a fan of Humans being dominant but divided, Elves are all Elven, Dwarves are Dwarven, Orcs may kill each other for almost pointless reasons but they are still "Orcish", Humans are...whatever country or city-state they were born in.

Humans only unite when threatened from the outside, sometimes not even then, but it doesn't last. Wars among Humanity are rare but separate nations vie for resources and territory.

 

[Herobizkit]

I went with "one savage race". I ran a boxed solo mega-campaign that only had one tiny Human-populated outpost and a massive expanse of broken wasteland. You could find any number of 'tribes' in them, many of which were non-human. The player ran a drow and travelled with a duergar, a gnoll and a goblin. The player decided that he would unite the Humanoid tribes and leave the Human tribes to their own devices.

When I run a campaign, I tend to go by this general rule:

If the players aren't human, the important people in the world aren't either.

World of Warcraft presented a setting where Humanoid races (specifically, the Horde) could easily be the dominant species in a setting. In WoW's case, the Orcs are the 'champion' race of the Horde trying to raise the Orcs out of the wastelands and generally live in peace. But curse those pesky humans and their Alliance...

Bottom line, for me, Humans Are Boring as Eff. I'd much rather find my way through the social hierarchy of a Humanoid-based region.

 

[saskganesh]

Humans. Easy buy in. With diverse cultures. Not boring.

 

[fagura]

Honestly it depends upon the campaign and storyline. Typical settings I play, humans are the dominant race, however, any of the poll options could serve as the primary race or racial condition depending upon the campaign itself.

Indeed there can be very interesting settings with all races. Given I am one of madnick's associates (who posted originally) I can give a little insight regarding the background of the question. By all means, when designing a setting there are things that you are definitely including (you like them too much). The storyline though in our case is not set to stone and although we have a clear concept regarding the setting's history (I could elaborate but I guess it 's beyond the point of the post), it can absolutely be altered or bent to include some distinctive feature that the community likes. In fact, it might even be re-written from scratch if we decide it 's worth it.
So, I 'll reverse your question: Given a good, rich storyline in every case, which option do you think would serve better a living campaign setting (which means role playing encounters between people who may not know each other, in some cases not playing in a fixed group but also general popularity, perhaps innovation in comparison to other settings if one is looking for it etc)?

 

[gamerprinter]

If you're going to get strangers to join your living campaign at some point, sometimes including racial restrictions can be a problem, as it would somehow lessen the available options to them. I think any reasonable player given a reasonable background story for the setting prior to joining it, can comply to certain restrictions designed to fit a specific thematic niche. That said, some people aren't that reasonable, thus any restrictions could possibly be problematic for a living campaign.

I as a GM have no problems to offer any one of the poll racial restrictions/conditions as the theme for a given campaign setting and would be more than willing to run a campaign based on those restrictions. I imagine many players would have no problems as well. Again, however, some players might be problematic in any such restrictions.

Which is more important - maintaining an implied theme based on some racial restrictions, or allowing any racial conditions a given player wants as in no restrictions at all? Answering that will guide you to the 'best scenario for living campaign' for your particular situation. Again for me, any of the poll options would be reasonable and should work well for a living campaign, however, it might not be best for you. I can't really be more specific than that - as I don't know what is the priority for your intentions.

While not applying to a living campaign, specifically, for example, if I were running the Curse of the Golden Spear trilogy of modules by Rite Publishing, which serves as an introductory visit to a feudal Japan based archipelago, and with the expectations that the PCs are not locals, thus restrictions from taking Asian specific classes apply in this case - you're generally restricted from playing samurai, kensai, ninja, geisha, as PCs shouldn't be familiar with its specific culture (the setting was a closed realm, until just prior to the start of the campaign - outsiders have never previously visited the isles.) Players are allowed to play any race or class they want, as long as it is not one of the Asian options available in PF. I would have no problems running this campaign in a living campaign intent as the GM. At the same time, however, there would probably be players who'd be uncomfortable with such restrictions, making it possibly less ideal for a living campaign.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I voted for one savage species, but not "... Now, they rule and it is in chaos and disorder."

Say, half-frog-men, for example?

What I think would really be a fun change of pace would be to have a "savage" race like hobgoblins or lizardfolk or something be the dominant culture, a la Planet of the Apes.

Perhaps... vegepygmies?



I like what Eberron did with the races: humans are dominant, overall, but dwarves are dominant in their mountains, elves dominant on Valenar, halfings on dinosaurs are dominant when they're on their dinosaurs, and the hobgoblins used to be dominant and now there are a couple pockets of "monster" humanoid kingdoms.

 

[Celebrim]

I prefer human dominant settings.

The reason is that I seldom find players able to RP non-humans to my satisfaction, and a non-human dominance would require excessive exposition to convey what the world was like. It's hard enough to get players to understand pre-modern non-American mindsets, much less the viewpoint of someone that isn't human.

Human dominant is preferable to a bunch of Star Trek style 'humans with bumps on their head'.

 

[gamerprinter]

I prefer human dominant settings.

The reason is that I seldom find players able to RP non-humans to my satisfaction, and a non-human dominance would require excessive exposition to convey what the world was like. It's hard enough to get players to understand pre-modern non-American mindsets, much less the viewpoint of someone that isn't human.

Human dominant is preferable to a bunch of Star Trek style 'humans with bumps on their head'.

Totally on experiment, primarily to emphasize how I feel most of my players play "humans with bumps on their heads" instead of elf, dwarf, whatever, that I ran an elf PC who was played as aloof, with concerns of maintaining status quo in most things, obsessed with ancient things and natural things, so much so, that the other players at the table mostly looked at me increduloulsy, as if I were portraying some kind of insane person. I actively tried not to emulate what a human might portray himself, and approach all concepts with a distinctly alien response and point of view. This really put the other players off, but I insisted that this portrayal was much closer to what I feel an elf PC should appear in play. Played as anything else was a human with makeup and pointy ears, and not an elf at all...

 

[am181d]

Totally on experiment, primarily to emphasize how I feel most of my players play "humans with bumps on their heads" instead of elf, dwarf, whatever, that I ran an elf PC who was played as aloof, with concerns of maintaining status quo in most things, obsessed with ancient things and natural things, so much so, that the other players at the table mostly looked at me increduloulsy, as if I were portraying some kind of insane person. I actively tried not to emulate what a human might portray himself, and approach all concepts with a distinctly alien response and point of view. This really put the other players off, but I insisted that this portrayal was much closer to what I feel an elf PC should appear in play. Played as anything else was a human with makeup and pointy ears, and not an elf at all...

Except these aren't alien races. They share a world, exist in the same ecosystem, face the same threats, frequently worship the same gods, etc. Sure there are distinguishing features (longevity, native habitats, maybe relationship to magic) but there's no reason to assume that what we think of as "recognizable human behaviors" aren't the same as "recognizable behaviors of intelligent life." By all means, play your own characters and run your own games however you want, but the idea that other people are doing it wrong is just arguing from bad premises.

 

[Celebrim]

Totally on experiment, primarily to emphasize how I feel most of my players play "humans with bumps on their heads" instead of elf, dwarf, whatever, that I ran an elf PC who was played as aloof, with concerns of maintaining status quo in most things, obsessed with ancient things and natural things, so much so, that the other players at the table mostly looked at me increduloulsy, as if I were portraying some kind of insane person. I actively tried not to emulate what a human might portray himself, and approach all concepts with a distinctly alien response and point of view. This really put the other players off, but I insisted that this portrayal was much closer to what I feel an elf PC should appear in play. Played as anything else was a human with makeup and pointy ears, and not an elf at all...

Totally in agreement with that.