Can you make a setting with no humans? The question, posed to me by my audience, reveals a lot about RPG World building and ttrpg gameplay in general.

Watching this one now. I once ran a campaign where the dominant race on the planet was Kobolds (and if I remember there were either no humans or they were largely gone). That worked but it was an oriental adventures campaign with kung fu fighting kobolds. I also did make a game I never published called the Meddlers, that took place in a kind of limbo, where there were individual cities separated by vast deserts. In that there were humans, but you couldn't be one. Everyone was a Brownie who were there to kind of protect the humans (I wrote about it when I was first working on it in this thread: https://www.therpgsite.com/design-development-and-gameplay/the-meddlers/). But again, never ended up putting that out. It had kind of a corny feel overall (which might have helped making it more gameable than if I had run a more straight forward setting with no humans). I don't object to hon-human settings but a lot of non-human settings that have come out, have tended not to interest me for other reasons.

No problem. I've done plenty.

We did all non-human campaigns back in AD&D and all mutant campaigns in Gamma World.

You could pit Dwarves and Elves at odds with one another; and then introduce some common crisis, that's greater than their bickering.  Force them to consider uniting, against a common cause.

No need to even mention humans.

It's interesting seeing this conversation evolve, because this probably started with the, "you play non-human characters to play the stereotype," thread.

I am starting to disagree with this idea because it devalues the semantics of being a human.

Fundamentally, the problem we are having is that we have never encountered a sentient race which thinks in a truly non-human manner, and assuming said sentient race isn't Lovecraftian, humans would quickly internalize how the thought process works. Put another way, out of game, the concept of a human character is quite plastic and always expands to match or exceed the space possible for a playable character.

The problem I have is that because this is a watered down of metagaming, this makes the word, "human," useless for roleplaying because by this definition, all characters are human. The Dwarf character is human, the Elf character is human. Etc. This is not seeing human characters as opposed to something else, which is actually more likely to be an in-character point of view within the fictional world. The player views the default race choice as human, but that isn't necessarily how the player character should think.

It would take a pretty special table to truly play an alien setting.  I put forward two difficulties with doing this in another thread.

The biggest issue I see is giving the audience (players) a way to connect and identify with the setting and the characters but not just making them humans but with special features.  Even very good writers have an issue with this.  As an example, what are Klingons other than proto-samurai with facial growths?  Actually getting players to detach from their own humanity and self identity is a Herculean task.

I once played a Tabaxi in a D&D 5e game a few years ago with the idea that I would pattern him after a common house cat.  I did my best to put my mind in the sate of engaging the game with both the motivations and thought processes of a cat.  The end result was a PC that was a lot of work to play and a lot of fellow players that were ready to see it end.

It's humans all the way down.

I think that if you're going to try to play truly nonhuman characters, it's important to have everyone in the group onboard with the idea. 

Some time ago I was in a 2E game playing a ranger with a 5 wisdom, not a dumb guy, but prone to bad decisions.  I decided to try to simulate this for roleplay purposes by making decisions by going with whatever idea first popped into my head.  These were generally silly or funny and this was a radical departure from my usual practice of thoroughly thinking everything through.  I had an absolute blast with this.  The other players not so much.  Some of the actions were detrimental to meeting our goal and several players were mad at me.  They thought maybe I had gone crazy.  If I had communicated first and let everyone know what I was doing it probably would have been acceptable at the table, and if not I could have done something else. 

Similarly a truly nonhuman character is going to do things that don't make sense viewed from a human perspective.  If your friends are not on board with this, it can cause friction at your table.

Quote from: Fheredin on April 11, 2025, 07:21:16 AMIt's interesting seeing this conversation evolve, because this probably started with the, "you play non-human characters to play the stereotype," thread.

I am starting to disagree with this idea because it devalues the semantics of being a human.

Fundamentally, the problem we are having is that we have never encountered a sentient race which thinks in a truly non-human manner, and assuming said sentient race isn't Lovecraftian, humans would quickly internalize how the thought process works. Put another way, out of game, the concept of a human character is quite plastic and always expands to match or exceed the space possible for a playable character.

The problem I have is that because this is a watered down of metagaming, this makes the word, "human," useless for roleplaying because by this definition, all characters are human. The Dwarf character is human, the Elf character is human. Etc. This is not seeing human characters as opposed to something else, which is actually more likely to be an in-character point of view within the fictional world. The player views the default race choice as human, but that isn't necessarily how the player character should think.

Yeah. Here's the nonhuman stereotype thread from a few months ago:

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/there-is-no-reason-to-play-a-nonhuman-except-to-use-stereotypes/

And specifically Pundit is saying that playing a nonhuman character is inherently limited to stereotypes, and thus any human character will be more interesting. He compares, say, playing a Moor on the streets of Dark Albion's London to playing a dwarf - and says that the Moor will inherently be more interesting.

• To me, every character has some stereotypes, and some parts that go past stereotypes. Playing a human paladin of Heironeous in an AD&D game has plenty of stereotypes, for example. There are stereotypes associated with race, with background, with class, and so on. Less stereotypes doesn't always mean a more interesting character, though. A character with no stereotypes like liable to be just bland.
• More importantly, non-humans isn't some mysterious rare case. I'm sure everyone on this forum has experienced lots of both human and non-human characters. I don't find that making a human character makes them interesting, or that making a non-human character makes them boring. I've seen lots of interesting non-human PCs.

I wonder if this has to do with historical cultures, though.

I do think real-world cultures are always going to be more in-depth than invented fantasy cultures - whether human or not. I've often favored games with versions of real-world cultures even if they have fantasy elements in part because of this. So when Pundit compares playing a 15th-century Moor to a dwarf, I feel like it's touching more on the depth of real-world Moorish culture than anything in biology.

Running a "setting with no humans" is a trick question because every so-called non-human played in an rpg is in fact a human in a non-human skin suit.

By that I mean there is the inescapable reality that we only know how to play "humans". To illustrate this point, if one ran a campaign where all players played bees in a colony the campaign would inevitably devolve into how the bees wanted to stop being drones, gain their individuality, topple the monarchy, and instill democracy.

And we can see this inability to put ourselves in other races shoes over and over again. This is why monsters are becoming less like monsters and more like misunderstood humans who just want to raise a family.

For these reasons and others is why I prefer to play human-centric games. 

Quote from: Ralph Malph on April 11, 2025, 05:47:03 PMRunning a "setting with no humans" is a trick question because every so-called non-human played in an rpg is in fact a human in a non-human skin suit.

By that I mean there is the inescapable reality that we only know how to play "humans".

It's true that we only know how to play humans.

It's also true that we only know a world without conspicuous magic.

Every so-called wizard in an rpg is just a fake played by someone with no idea about what a wizard would truly be like.

---

The point is, it's just a game. You don't have to know real magic to play a wizard, and you don't be be really non-human to play a hobbit. It's fine to prefer human-only games, but it's just a preference.

Quote from: jhkim on April 11, 2025, 06:13:35 PM

Quote from: Ralph Malph on April 11, 2025, 05:47:03 PMRunning a "setting with no humans" is a trick question because every so-called non-human played in an rpg is in fact a human in a non-human skin suit.

By that I mean there is the inescapable reality that we only know how to play "humans".

It's true that we only know how to play humans.

It's also true that we only know a world without conspicuous magic.

Every so-called wizard in an rpg is just a fake played by someone with no idea about what a wizard would truly be like.

---

The point is, it's just a game. You don't have to know real magic to play a wizard, and you don't be be really non-human to play a hobbit. It's fine to prefer human-only games, but it's just a preference.

Excellent point! This is also why I don't like high magic or super hero games!

Quote from: jhkim on April 11, 2025, 06:13:35 PM

Quote from: Ralph Malph on April 11, 2025, 05:47:03 PMRunning a "setting with no humans" is a trick question because every so-called non-human played in an rpg is in fact a human in a non-human skin suit.

By that I mean there is the inescapable reality that we only know how to play "humans".

It's true that we only know how to play humans.

It's also true that we only know a world without conspicuous magic.

Every so-called wizard in an rpg is just a fake played by someone with no idea about what a wizard would truly be like.

I beg to differ. That's like saying someone who isn't a computer programmer doesn't have any idea how to play a computer programmer.

A wizard is just someone with special skills, and still a human, whose personality is tied to the human experience.

Can there be better or worse ways to portray a wizard? Sure. It also depends which game you're playing. But it's still much more relatable to play a human wizard than an elf with a 1000 year lifespan.

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 13, 2025, 04:19:25 AMThat's like saying someone who isn't a computer programmer doesn't have any idea how to play a computer programmer.

Actually no, they don't.  At least most don't.  What I see is a lot of players aping behavioral quirks but not actually getting into the mindset. 

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 13, 2025, 04:19:25 AM

Quote from: jhkim on April 11, 2025, 06:13:35 PM

Quote from: Ralph Malph on April 11, 2025, 05:47:03 PMRunning a "setting with no humans" is a trick question because every so-called non-human played in an rpg is in fact a human in a non-human skin suit.

By that I mean there is the inescapable reality that we only know how to play "humans".

It's true that we only know how to play humans.

It's also true that we only know a world without conspicuous magic.

Every so-called wizard in an rpg is just a fake played by someone with no idea about what a wizard would truly be like.

I beg to differ. That's like saying someone who isn't a computer programmer doesn't have any idea how to play a computer programmer.

A wizard is just someone with special skills, and still a human, whose personality is tied to the human experience.

Can there be better or worse ways to portray a wizard? Sure. It also depends which game you're playing. But it's still much more relatable to play a human wizard than an elf with a 1000 year lifespan.

I see your point. When you equate being a wizard to being like other skilled occupations, it makes sense.

But being a wizard in modern Dungeons & Dragons is more akin to being a Demi-God or high-level comic book superhero. Personally, I have no interest in playing such characters because they are so far removed from our own "human experience" that it makes it unrelatable to me. Though I am happy to play "street level" powered characters.

PS: I'm not throwing shade on those who enjoy playing such characters. It's just a hobby, so to each their own.