Who prefers a human-centric campaign?

[Quartz]

It's been a while since I GMed, but how can players play a non-human in an original campaign setting without having experienced them?

IOW all players must start with human characters, but as the campaign progresses and attrition strikes, non-human characters may be taken.

 

[Crothian]

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.

If I were to run a game in medieval Europe it might be hard. But fantasy settings very loosely based on medieval times are really easy.

But since you changed the definition after I posted it would change my answer.

 

[haakon1]

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.

Of course, you're leaving out the middle ground of the traditional D&D option -- humans + "traditional" D&D races.

The anti-cantina faction (which includes me) isn't saying "ban elves".

It's saying "really, do we need shardminds and robot people and dragon people with boobies and 75 other random things WOTC just came up with to be player races? really? are we THAT bored of traditional D&D that we have to play ninja vampire space creatures of doom from another dimension and CALL that D&D?"

Partially, of course, it's a grognard v. WOTC argument, in yet another dimension.

 

[haakon1]

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).

I agree with you, and I assume this "default" neither all human nor all weird setting is what most D&Ders want.

Sadly, the poll doesn't have a choice corresponding to it.

 

[Nifft]

I do like human-centric settings, but I have no idea what your poll question is supposed to mean:

Do you prefer or like a setting where humans are almost the only playable PC race?

There is only one other race besides humans? Or there are lots of races, but all other races are almost unplayable? Neither sounds like a particularly good idea.

Maybe you want to ask if people like settings where most PCs end up human. That would make a bit of sense, but I hope it has little to do with how playable the other options are: if you give people options, they all damn well better be playable options.

- - -

Also, I think the poll question confuses one of the fundamental aspects of any "-centric" discussion. In order for there to be a thing that is X-centric, there must be quite a lot of non-X stuff which is relegated to secondary status. If you don't have any second-class citizens, you also don't have any first-class citizens: first-class only exists if there are other classes to which it can be contrasted.

- - -

tl;dr - I didn't vote in the poll.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dykstrav]

Generally speaking, I prefer a game where human characters are the norm, where human nations tend to dominate the campaign area, and where non-human races are at least given a nod towards being unusual.

The single biggest reason is because I find that the stereotypes (or archetypes, if you prefer) of these fantasy races are usually treated like discrete boxes of what is and is not acceptable for a character.

For example... In a Norse-type setting, I wanted to play an elf fighter that concentrated on archery. His melee weapon? Battleaxe. I prefer axes to swords, and I wasn't going to limit my character's options based on the common image that elves have in contemporary fantasy. Some players reacted with, "Oh, cool, it's neat that someone is playing an elf that doesn't use a longsword or rapier." Some players reacted with, "You're playing your character wrong, an elf would never use an axe--they get longsword proficiency as a racial trait." (Or some other rationalization.)

For what it's worth, I've had the same reactions when I want to play a paladin that uses a battleaxe or ranged weapons instead of a longsword or bastard sword. I'm not suggesting that this attitude is limited to perceptions of character race... It's just another set of borders that people want to limit their characters with.

I inwardly cringe every time I game with someone playing a dwarf with a Scottish accent.

I enjoy settings where character race isn't intimately tied to the character's identity. I'd rather that characters make decisions based on their personality rather than their race, class, or alignment. Just as every member of a given ethnic or religious background in real life doesn't follow the assumed images of their culture (whether positive or negative), I don't see why some players insist that it's "good role-playing" to ham it up with fantasy stereotypes.

 

[Quantum]

I much prefer a human centric game. I'm not opposed to playing demihumans though.

However, I developed a distaste about them because when the Drizzt books first came out, everybody wanted to be a clone of Drizzt. Even on some of the early forums everybody gave themselves a Drizzt name or variant for their forum name. And that just got on my nerves.

And to this day I will not even pick up or read a Drizzt book.

However, I do have a drow bard character on DDO.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I must say I like the Tolkien subset of: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit. They are quite distinct and most people have an idea of how a society of them will be. For those that want some more variety there are several subtypes and different cultures.

I think it makes more sense than the bewildering amount of completely different races they are throwing at us in 4e dnd. I haven't read any books that had a Shardmind, Genasi, so I can't really make up my mind what would be typical with their behavior.

Although... In my current campaign I have got a player playing a Changeling and he made up this back-story of a weird changeling society that was quite dark and backstabbing. He managed to escape it, and he has real problems understanding altruism. His role-playing has added great depth to the campaign.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I somewhat hesitantly answered no.

To me, one of the fundamental aspects of D&D (and of fiction in general) is escapism, getting away from one's real life. Playing a nonhuman character can help with that. The classic races are also part of the fantasy language; everyone knows what an elf and a dwarf is and some useful things about them. This saves time and effort in establishing setting, and gives the opportunity to either use, riff on, or subvert stereotypes.

It's also worth noting that D&D humans typically lack diversity. A generic quasi-european setting is assumed, with a culture based on a number of assumptions (obviously, there are exceptions, but this is the norm). Having some kind of diversity is important to give players choices.

I think 3.X got it about right. Humans are the default race, and are viable with almost any class or concept, but there are a number of interesting alternatives.

 

[Rechan]

Of course, you're leaving out the middle ground of the traditional D&D option -- humans + "traditional" D&D races.

You seem to miss this part:

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.

What part of "odd, out of place and human-centric parties are preferred" says "ban elves"?

And I fully see it typically in threads that even talk about elves and dwarves. Would you like me to link you to such posts?

Also, to answer your question, yes I would prefer a setting with no traditional fantasy races. None. What. So. Ever. In fact, a setting with no humans would make me fairly happy.