Who prefers a human-centric campaign?

[Aeolius]

To quote King Lear "Never, never, never, never, never!" In fact core races have not been allowed for PC use in my last game or current game and will not be allowed in my next game. But that is mainly due to the environment of the first two games (underwater) and the nature of the next one (all animal).

That being said, I once played a human cleric for over four years, taking him from Level 1 to 19.

 

[ArghMark]

I always found that both styles can suit at different times.

I ran an awesome Wheel of Time game once where one of the characters was an Ogier, but everyone else just played humans of different races. It was awesome, and fit the setting.

Playing Age of Worms, had characters from all sorts of different stuff due to party attrition. It was interesting and good because it was a very 'game' focused game rather than any real RPing.

If something suits the setting, such as everyone being human, then everyone being human creates differences enough between the humans that the differences are made important. If everyone is zany, planescape style, then those large differences mean less.

It's however you want to play it.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I will vote according to the poll's heading, paying particular attention to the 'or like' bit. I voted 'yes', by the way.

In other words, I do 'like a setting where humans are almost the only playable PC race' -- in fact, I actually like more than one such setting!

 

[steenan]

I may play with two different approaches and have fun with both.

In the first one, I expect stylistic consistency. Give me 3-5 races: maybe all human, maybe demihumans, maybe something more strange, but still fitting together (important: either Tolkien races, or strange races, don't mix). Build the world as it is shaped by these races, by their cultures. In such world, being a warforged, being a dwarf, or even just being from Shangara Mountains is meaningful.

The other approach is unconstrained strangeness. That's what you have in Planescape, for example. Here, being an abishai, or bladeling, or a deva is like being tall and dark-haired in our world: a trait, but nothing distinctive. In such a world, I also expect to encounter places, items and events that fit the strangeness level of the racial setup. Give me a city built on a giant, levitating egg, a spiked armor with a friendly personality and let me pursue the baddie, riding a dinosaur, on an interplanar highway!

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Yeah, but you're asking two different things here.

I like human-centric campaigns but I don't prefer them.

I love the Earthdawn setting (dwarf-centric with a couple of well-developed racial choices) but I also like the Ars Magica setting (Mythic Europe, almost exclusively humans).

What I don't like are 'cantina' settings, like the apparent D&D 4e default:
Lots of weird-looking races that aren't actually any (culturally) different from humans.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

A setting is meant to be a world, and I find claiming that the entire world has only a few elves or dwarves is a bit stiffling.

That said, the actual place of adventure tends to be much more focused. Typically I'll a single race be the dominating one - not always humans, mind you - with a smattering of other "common" races throughout the lands making their homes there. Then, when a player wants to be something other then the common race or from a different ethnicity or cultural background, I just say that they're from outside of this area or from another land.

 

[Shoe]

I prefer a human centric campaign, but i feel like that is what grounds the story in realism and makes the fantasy elements truly seem special. If everyone is playing a race that is bizaar, nothing grounds the setting in realism and so accomplishments of that character can be chocked up to wierd race. A human wielding magic is special a dragon wielding magic is just expected as an example

 

[Belorin]

I DM our D&D 4E game and I allow any race supported by the Character Builder.

Bel

 

[airwalkrr]

I answered "No" because of the way the poll was worded and because of what the OP said to qualify about the poll. I do not PREFER to play in a campaign where human is practically the only choice, but I do prefer a world where humankind is the predominant or most common race. My reasons are much the same as those of the original creators; it is impractical by any means to assume the identity and customs of a heretofore unheard of group of beings. If you had a world where elves were ruled by kings and built fortresses and founded religions would you not simply be putting pointy ears on humans? You could even create a world of elves who lived solely in forests, ate vegetarian diets, and wore leopard skins, but there are HUMANS who do this too. Would you not simply be creating a microcosm of a sub-section of humanity and placing pointy ears on them?

A world without humans is hard for actual humans to relate to. I prefer settings where humans are the most common and other races have to fit themselves into human society by and large. Greyhawk is a human city. Waterdeep is a human city. Sharn is a human city (even though some of it was built by goblins). There may be non-humans that live among them, but by and large the most successful D&D campaign settings have been those that featured humans as the predominant race. And it's for a good reason. People relate to humans best. Even Drizz't, arguably the most popular D&D character in fiction, is celebrated for his "humanness," the fact that he threw off the shackles of wicked drow society and his evil family to embrace human ideals and champion the cause of good.

So humans the ONLY choice? No, I like elves and dwarves. But humans as the MOST COMMON choice? Yeah, I'll take that.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

People relate to humans best.

Not everyone.