I do. I like high fantasy settings and most of my campaigns have some cantina-ish places but I prefer human-centric games.Who likes a human-centric campaign?
In my homebrew, elves and dwarves are demi-humans, mortals descended from or transformed by outsiders (the actual fey are truly alien and like most magical creatures, not native to the material world)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.
I would say all aliens serve the literary purpose of exploring a particular facet of humanity, but that they serve this purpose best when in that facet they are quite alien to our experience as humans.
haakon1 said: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?"
Whence that stereotype, anyhow? Was it Gimli in Peter Jackson's "Ring" movies? (I don't remember the actor's accent.)Dykstrav said:I inwardly cringe every time I game with someone playing a dwarf with a Scottish accent.
Many animated films, or puppet features such as Henson's The Dark Crystal, may come to mind, and anthropomorphic animals in books ranging from The Wind in the Willows (which I think includes humans as well) to the Redwall series.Rechan said: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.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.