Would you be willing to play in a campaign setting with none of the core races?

[Ferret]

Would/could you play in a campaign setting with no elves, dwarves, humans, gnomes, halflings etc?

[Edit:this does not mean it is an all furries setting, but it does mean that the core races do not exist, period.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'd give it a go, but I doubt that I would like it very much. I like my fantasy games to be based in a more traditional style. Just call it a matter of personal preference.

 

[Mordane76]

I've never done this before, but I don't see why this couldn't work, and work well, as long as the options availble were good. I could see someone doing a monsters only campaign, or a homebrew with all hand-worked races, and either of those would work fine. Knocking out all the standards, however, requires some thought. If you're running a monsters only campaign, where these races still exist but simply aren't available to characters, then no real additional thought it necessary. If you're building your races up with your world, then you have to pay attention to at least plausible niche roles for each race -- giving them a 'purpose' or function will help people connect to them better.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Personnaly i have no real strong love of the core races, so if the replacements were cool and worked in the campaign setting then it'd be fine by me.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I'm willing to try mostly any kind of game. So, sure, I'd give it a go.

 

[Carnifex]

I'd be willing to give it a go, if it was with a DM who I knew was competent enough to carry it off

 

[Trickstergod]

I went with I'd give it a go, but I doubt it.

I could easily play in a monster sort of game, going with an orc or goblin or the like, but that's presuming there were actually humans and the like in it, just not PC's.

However, a campaign setting that utterly lacked them? It'd be a hard sell. The moment "No humans" cropped up, I'd raise my brow and wonder just what to expect.

Any DM who tossed out a line like, "I find humans boring," would likely earn my ire, and give me a poor impression to the game. I'd be expecting a game where being neat and kewl would be of the utmost of importance, which would really only keep me interested for a one-shot. After that, the novelty would wear off. Bigger or different isn't always better, and I think being different for differences sake often doesn't work out well. Some familiarity is necessary.

 

[Quickbeam]

I'm generally open to trying new things, especially if they seem likely to play out well based on the information provided. However, I agree with some of the skepticism and reservations expressed in previous posts.

A lot would rest on the shoulders of the DM/GM, and of course the campaign setting itself. If a viable fabric for the game's backdrop was provided I'm sure this could work...it just may not prove to be my personal cup of tea.

Why, do you have anything specific in mind?

 

[Wormwood]

Ditching elves, dwarves and halflings? Fantastic. Ditching humans? Less enthusiastic (but I'm still open-minded)

But I'd have to see the implementation before I decide to buy into the world.

Take Diamond Throne for example. MC took the ol' eraser to the Tolkien races, but I found the new races were not to my tastes (with the exception of the Giants).

Oh, and if you're talking about replacing the core races with Furries in any capacity . . . I'm afraid we have to part company.

 

[Woas]

I'd try it. It would help if the person making the campaign put some thought behind the new races and did not just decide one afternoon that making lizardman, goblins, nixies and gelatinous cubes would be funny core races and did not make any real backstory or info for me to think about while I'm playing.