Worlds & Monsters: humans are boring??

[Vayden]

But humans can be mysterious. Humans are so diverse, even in fantasy campagaigns styled loosely after tolkien, that they can cover a lot of niches and cultures. From inuit to pygmi, from huns to romans, from chinese to aztecs, the only thing that defines what's new and what's old/boring is what culture one is used to/fed up with.

It's good that humans can have thousands of diverse cultures - it's better if both humans and the other races have diverse cultures. Wizards isn't going to lay out a bunch of cultures in the PHB/DMG, because they're just providing the bare minimum of culture fluff due to page count limitations, but settings and DMs will hopefully flesh out other races more if they're encouraged to. Dwarves as a) greedy, territorial miners b) enlightened mountain shepherds c) wain-riding nomadic berserkers d) members of a cosmopolitan, democratic Athens-type city-state are all excellent, and push a DM to do a different take on things than they would simulating those cultures with vanilla humans. For instance, c) was from a campaign I did where I wanted to mimic the Mongol hordes w/ Dwarves - having them as straight horse-riding nomad hordes didn't work because of their short, stumpy legs, so I made them wain-riders, treating their oxen with the same care that the Mongols gave their horses. In battle, they went in on foot with heavily armored rolling carts as mobile forts and rallying points. It was fun. I could have done something fun with that culture as humans too, but using Dwarves was more interesting (at least for me).

I just think, based upon the examples in races and classes we got so far, that WotC is working from a false assumption of "pointy ears means more cool", and lacks really original ideas for those new commonness for the races. So far, all I saw was just more humans in funny suits - right down to reptiles with boobs.

That's a fair worry, especially since pointy ears = less cool, as the poster above mentioned. I think we haven't seen enough to condemn them yet, and I don't expect the base 3 to include an encyclopedia of culture - at the start, you give out the basic stereotypes, and build from there in adventures/settings/supplements.

 

[Matt Black]

Anyway, I saw a lot of back-and-forth in this thread with the "end of humans" people being defensive and the "human baseline" folks assuming their base was impregnable - the point is, is it really? No one means to deny that you can have vibrant and interesting human-based worlds (however poorly W&M worded it, I'm pretty sure they're not denying that). The point is that we've done all of that before, and the challenge for 4E is to continue to evolve D&D - let's start creating some more vibrant worlds without the crutch of safe, familiar human dominance (Planescape's a good example).

Of course you can have a great story in a non-human-centric world. Human dominance isn't required for an interesting setting. But a large part of the interest in such settings is in exploring how humans cope in an alienating environment - and the Taltos series that you mention is a perfect example of this. So even those settings require a human perspective.

But that's not the point. The real point of this thread is that it's a mistake to dictate anti-human-centrism, as 4E seems to be trying to do. From this thread alone, it's clear that there are a lot of people who favour the fantasy trope in which humans dominate and the fantasy elements are exotic and wonderous.

Why deny this common, if not dominant trope, which D&D has supported (even assumed) throughout its history? Why even try to impose ideas on the relative power of the races? That's so specific to individual tastes and to individual campaigns. Far more so than the PoL 'feel'.

 

[DandD]

From this thread alone, it's clear that there are a lot of people who favour the fantasy trope in which humans dominate and the fantasy elements are exotic and wonderous.

How do we know that it's a lot, and not just some few? One can also say that a lot of people like the idea of humans not being the most dominant race in a setting.
Nobody can verify this claim.

Why deny this common, if not dominant trope, which D&D has supported (even assumed) throughout its history? Why even try to impose ideas on the relative power of the races? That's so specific to individual tastes and to individual campaigns. Far more so than the PoL 'feel'.

Perhaps because it's boring. Or maybe even antiquated. D&D is also escapism, after all. The newer generations don't have a problem with the idea of a setting, where humans are the minority. Being a human in a alien-/fantasy race dominated world can even give you the "unique snowflake"-feeling that you might wish to have with other races.

 

[xechnao]

IMO the most interesting settings are those that follow the concept of two major players whose byproducts complicate their situation.

For example Humans and Predators. Add in as a byproduct Aliens or even Terminators.

In fantasy you could have a benefit/abuse relation among two groups based on magic as opposed to technology on the previous example. Let monsters, such as orcs or undead be a such a byproduct fruit.

D&D ravenloft is a setting where PCs assume the role of a byproduct: the mists and the dread lords are the two major players. PCs assume the role of a byproduct.

I prefer settings where PCs are a major player though. One setting like could be something based on Earthsea's trope. One player is the humans the other player is the dragons.

Keep it simple and interesting

 

[Zarithar]

The "points of light" are for the most part human settlements anyway (or human dominated). As for me, I prefer fantasy settings such as GRMM's A Song of Ice and Fire series (Westeros) to the settings where magic and supernatural beings are commonplace. In my opinion, when the magical and exotic is rare, that alone adds far more mystery and excitement.

Using the Westeros setting for example, the chapters concerning Dany and the dragons are truly interesting, because we KNOW that these may well be the *only* dragons in existence. Likewise portraying the giants beyond The Wall as a dying, semi-mythical race makes it much more interesting when they finally do make an appearance in the series. As for the humans... there is plenty of interesting content revolving around them.

Humans in most fantasy settings are also generally the most capable of doing the greatest acts of either good or evil as well. Nine times out of ten there is a human wizard at the root of the latest orc invasion or what have you. Simply look at Salvatore's FR books... yes there are plenty of dragons, orcs, drow, etc.... but the most memorable villains are for the most part... human (Entreri, Akar Kessel, Dendybar the Mottled, etc)

 

[DandD]

What self-respecting person would even read FR-books and like them? That's like saying that DC comics are paragons of continuity, and Infinity Crisis never happened.

 

[Zarithar]

What self-respecting person would even read FR-books and like them? That's like saying that DC comics are paragons of continuity, and Infinity Crisis never happened.

I enjoy Salvatore's FR books. No... they aren't highly sophisticated literary masterpieces, but they ARE enjoyable light reading. That wasn't the point of my post in any case, but I congratulate you on the derail.

 

[Matt Black]

The "points of light" are for the most part human settlements anyway (or human dominated).

I don't think that this is what Wizards intends. They talk about the end of the human-dominated world, which to me means that even the points of light are supposed to be largely non-human. I could be wrong, but that's how W&M reads to me.

 

[DandD]

I enjoy Salvatore's FR books. No... they aren't highly sophisticated literary masterpieces, but they ARE enjoyable light reading. That wasn't the point of my post in any case, but I congratulate you on the derail.

Thank you. And thank you for admitting that Forgotten Realms-books are fubar.
In fact, aren't they the primary cause for all the things that those who like the Forgotten Realms as they are now will change then with the 4th edition?
Mediocre fantasy books dictate the fate of the iconic D&D-setting.

 

[Zarithar]

I don't think that this is what Wizards intends. They talk about the end of the human-dominated world, which to me means that even the points of light are supposed to be largely non-human. I could be wrong, but that's how W&M reads to me.

That's probably right. I wonder how they are going to change the various deities as well. Most of them have a very human appearance.