Who prefers a human-centric campaign?

[Rechan]

After starting a thread about the Cantina Effect, and being a part of several other race-based threads, I've seen some posters express an interest for the human-centric game. I'm curious the proportion of the population that supports that.

And by "Human-centric setting" where there are "almost the only playable PC race", I mean a game/campaign/whatever where playing a non-human is going to be seen as odd and very out of place, and where human-filled parties are preferred.

I also mean a setting where humans may not be the only mechanical choice, but are almost the only Flavor choice. I.e. reskinning a dwarf or a half-orc as humans from a different area/tradition.

Yes, I am well aware this poll is limited. Sorry, but there aren't going to be more options; it's really a simple question, just to see the number out there that Do.

 

[Crothian]

I do. It's easiest since my players are currently all humans.

 

[Rechan]

I do. It's easiest since my players are currently all humans.

If that is "easy", then it must be very hard for you to run a game in a medieval fantasy setting considering all of your players are in the modern day United States.

 

[Herobizkit]

I'm not a fan of humanocentric settings unless said settings are primarily Modern or Sci-Fi, or Fantasy that relies heavily on said components (for example, Etherscope).

 

[the Jester]

Not quite as humanocentric as you are defining the question, so I guess no.

My preference is for a campaign with recognizable non-human territories that are limited in scope, leading to a small number of "demihuman" pcs. This works best when backed up by mechanical incentives for playing humans that outweigh the incentives for playing nonhumans; for instance, in a system I'm working on, humans will prolly have a 20% bonus to earned xp over nonhumans (but higher level will not make your competence extraordinarily deeper, but rather broader; one of the system's goals is to allow for 1st level pcs to adventure with 20th level pcs in a way that actually works okay).

 

[Alzrius]

I don't care for humanocentricism unless I'm limited to the "standard" fantasy races.

That is, I much prefer alien/exotic races, and am constantly forcing my GM to rein me in whenever I bring up playing a character race that he's never heard of from a third-party book.

However, when that does happen, I find myself defaulting to being human. Partially because the feel of standard elves, dwarves, etc. is so cliche that it turns me off. Likewise, the bonuses for playing as a human (our game is Pathfinder) seem to be better; extra skill points and an extra feat, plus I get to choose where the +2 ability bonus goes? Sold!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I feel like there's a more nuanced position, here.

I, personally, am a bit of a fan of playing "weird race" characters. It scratches my instinct to resolve dichotomies and my cultural anthro background really nicely.

But what qualifies as a "weird race" depends on the setting. So the more the assumption is Cantinaesque, the farther afield I need to go to play a weird race. Forex, in Sufficiently Advanced, the setting is transhumanist, so there are clones and net-denizens and constructed bodies and bio-engineered folks and all sorts of other sci-fi wackiness, as assumed character types. So first character I played was Amish. Fully supported character archetype, but against the grain of the setting enough to qualify as a "weird race." Playing a normal human with normal human capabilities was weird.

So, in that respect, I enjoy a human-centric campaign: it means that if I play gasp, a half-orc, I am aberrant and strange, which scratches my weird race itch.

In a Cantina-like setting, I need to get a bit creative (I remember the first old d6 Star Wars game I played, I chose to be a protocol droid. I was essentially forbidden from dealing damage to anything.). This isn't inherently a problem, it's just a change of tactics. Even the most inclusive setting has weird stuff -- sects that are normally villains, or "everyday aliens," or just something that rubs most people the wrong way.

It's also a matter of mechanics. In a game like D&D, where races are mechanically distinct, having a human-centric setting that eliminates options isn't very appealing. But having a game where, say, Dragonborn are re-fluffed as warrior humans from an old kingdom devoted to Bahamut (who just happen to have a breath weapon as a legacy), you can keep the human-centric aspect of it, without limiting mechanical choice to "only be a human." This is liquid easy in 4e, since no race has a real physical change. For all their claws and teeth, dragonborn don't have a bite attack.

Finally, it's a question of variety. Some times, I want the Cantina. Sometimes, I want LotR. Sometimes, I want a game where elves are totally alien, and dwarves are only legendary. Some times, I want a game where everyone is a monster.

I don't want to limit myself to only one option of setting.

For default D&D, I think something "LotR-esque" is warranted. Halflings, elves, dwarves, maybe a handful of other basically human characters with some weird quirks, nothing really with claws and fangs, nothing nonmammalian, nothing from another plane, preserves a sense of mystery while still allowing for some fundamental archetypes. It shouldn't be limited to that, of course -- Dark Sun brings you bug-people and giants, forex. But it makes a good launching-off-point, giving a basic humanesque baseline that can easily be added to, but probably wouldn't be largely taken away from (it's easy to see all of those in a more Cantinaesque setting, and you could see those being "weird races" or human cultures in a more human-centric setting).

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Both.

 

[Haltherrion]

My group and I sometimes talk about more human-centric campaigns but when it comes down to it, we usually end up more human than not but with plenty of non-humans. Partly, that's because we pick characters with a system that leverages figures painted by out in-house painter and he won't do a draft of all humans

Our starting campaign is set in a place where humans and elves are somewhat in conflict which in theory encourages human only or elf only groups but the conflict is murky which allowed the players to straddle things a bit. But humans will have trouble when among the elves and vice versa. We ended up with mixed groups of elves and humans. It's fine with me, the tension will be useful for the campaign.

Quite a while ago I ran a game where the setting was pretty much all human but it was also in a world where humans could evolve in size, sexual dimorphism and the like fairly quickly so the different human races had their own characteristics. However, the players all came from the same human variant so that was similar to what you are talking about.

In general, though, we tend to play either something that is fairly open on races (there are almost always setting limitations, plus our painter doesn't like to paint hobbits and gnomes ) or something where the setting suggests certain races are dominant but others are available in lesser numbers.

 

[Umbran]

Prefer? Eh. I'm normally happy with either.

I'm starting up a Deadlands game now. There are no non-human PC races in the game. It is possible to play an undead human, but those are supposed to be rare.