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

[JoeGKushner]

There are enough viable alternatives now that it wouldn't be too hard but the no humans bit is kinda harsh as I've always felt that they, in many ways, are the baseline for the rest of the game.

 

[Aethelstan]

I'm currently developing a new campaign that will use races (slightly altered) from Arcana Unearthed: Giant, Litorians, Faen and Mojh.
I'm still using 3.5 rules with few AU bits added (a few classes and feats). I decided to exclude the core races because they have so much baggage attached to them. Nearly all are Tolkein derived and have been saddled with clichés accumulated over 20+ years of D&D. I selected and tinkered with races from AU so that each would be distinctly different both from each other as well as from the core races. My hope is that new races will keep players from falling into the same trite stereotypes.

 

[barsoomcore]

I chose "Other".

Whether or not the core races are present has nothing to do with my interest in a campaign setting. What DOES provoke my interest is what the races that are present (whatever they may be) are like -- along with everything else.

If a campaign setting is well-designed, well-written, and has lots of kewl stuff, I'm interested. Core races present? I wouldn't even consider the issue.

The only thing about the core races is that they're proven to be broadly playable. If a setting includes new races, I will consider them the way I consider everything else in the setting -- well-designed? well-written? kewl?

 

[Ottergame]

lemme guess...you'd like to play an anthropomorphic otter?

I have before, depends on who I am playing with. If I'm playing with a group of furry fans, I play an anthromorph, typically a gay one since well, all of us as players are gay too. If I'm playing with people who don't like either one of those things, I have no problem playing a normal humanoid race. I've played dozens of humanlike characters over the years, and very few animals.

 

[~Johnny~]

My first instinct is to say no, but the more I think about it, the more I realize there are exceptions to the rule.

A roleplaying experience that wasn't furry-based but which involved actual animals (a la Redwall) could theoretically be interesting.

And now that I think of it, I once got 50 pages into writing a D20 conversion of The Legend of Zelda (based primarily on the Ocarina of Time era). Like many projects, I never completed it, but the races were awesome: Hylians, Kokiri, Gerudo, Zora, Goron... really fun stuff.

 

[Aeolius]

...depends on who I am playing with. If I'm playing with a group of furry fans, I play an anthromorph, typically a gay one since well, all of us as players are gay too. If I'm playing with people who don't like either one of those things, I have no problem playing a normal humanoid race. I've played dozens of humanlike characters over the years, and very few animals.

Take a gander at www.lobi.com/bpaa and look over the Campaign Background. I do have otterkin NPCs, gnome-like humanoid otters, in the game. Two NPC mermen in the current Chapter are gay, while more adult themes are often explored (the tiefling mermaid, after a Fins to Feet spell, is now pregnant, as is her mate, as pseudonatural fish hags are parthenogenetic).

 

[Ottergame]

Take a gander at www.lobi.com/bpaa and look over the Campaign Background. I do have otterkin NPCs, gnome-like humanoid otters, in the game. Two NPC mermen in the current Chapter are gay, while more adult themes are often explored (the tiefling mermaid, after a Fins to Feet spell, is now pregnant, as is her mate, as pseudonatural fish hags are parthenogenetic).

I'll have to take a look at it, thanks.

 

[Jehosephat]

I voted no. I need my dwarves, halflings, and of course the drow

 

[Nightfall]

Drow are over-rate IMHO. I just want some snake men and ratmen!

 

[Jehosephat]

Drow are over-rate IMHO. I just want some snake men and ratmen!

I'll put my Drow up against your Slithern any day buddy