Quote from: DUCATISLO on July 12, 2024, 03:33:45 PMold fart detected

Ohh Ohh scathing, I'm gonna need some aloe for that witty retort of a burn.

Humor aside what compels you to project your fetish onto demihumans? what is so great about demihumans, the best they can ever be is human archetypes so why not cut out the middle man?

Unless the goal is to play something genuinely alien? except no that can't be it because you never do, you just play extra quirky or spicy humans more or less.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 12, 2024, 06:40:55 PMComplaining about darkvision has become a bit of a cliche, but it really is a big culprit in this. It's just too damn useful, and being the only person in the party who doesn't have it is a huge pain in the ass. I wouldn't mind "everyone has darkvision", if everyone actually had it. Running dungeons for a party that's 70% darkvision becomes a hassle.

They should have stuck to infravision which was totally nullified by torches and other lighting.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on July 12, 2024, 06:57:18 PMWhile I don't see why you couldn't do a humans-only fantasy setting, I think there's something of an assumption that a D&D game will have some non-humans around.

Good question.

I think over time the assumption has more been this push that "you can be anything" and the DM has to accept it. And then the shicking disllusionment when the DM says No.

Theres numerous reports of players using this to be disruptive or powergame. They want X race because they want to try and either break the game, or piss off the DM or players. None of which would happen if the DM vetoed it.

The average player is fine with restrictions long as the DM is up front about it and pitches something interesting.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 12, 2024, 07:30:27 AMEven average players usually look at fantasy races and think "that's a human with more stuff, so why not?". If there are animal races in a game, someone will play them. If demi-humans are mechanically equal or better than humans, you will probably get a majority demihuman party. If you don't want a high percentage of non-humans, you have to give players a reason to play human. Either ban the races you don't want, or play a human-only or race-as-class game.

^THIS^

ForgottenF gets it.

Fantasy settings do not actually need as many fantastical races as people seem to think. You can see this in the 5e data from D&D beyond and the large player base of Baulders gate 3.

Data released by the Baulders gate 3 people, and D&D beyond show that The human fighter is the reigning and defending champion of all times. For races it's Humans, then Elves/Half-Elves, then Dragonborne, then Tieflings, then dwarves, and everything beyond that as a kinda grab-bag.

Worth noting that once their strength bonus was disappeared, virtually no one plays a Half-Orc anymore. That group has shifted to the Dragonborn that can literally breathe fire...

IMO: If you took away the racial ability of the dragonborn to breathe fire, that race would fall by the wayside right quick.

Tieflings are just politically correct Drow.

It is not controversial to state that for a fantasy setting, you only really need 2-3 "non-human" races in your setting. And the overwhelming majority of the player base will be satisfied with the options.

While there were always those that pushed for essentially unlimited choices for PC races, it's now pretty obvious that they have always just been a loud, but tiny minority.

Quote from: SHARK on July 12, 2024, 06:25:25 PMThe player culture has changed though, dramatically. That's the problem. Before, Player Monsters were a once-every-so-often thing.

I would say that as Wotc has increasingly catered to the online savvy woke fanbase, that has had downstream effects on general table play across the board.

D&D 'worldbuilding' has become increasingly self-referential, and nonsensical.

Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2024, 07:20:35 PMLets not forget that before the game was published players were playing monsters. Monard mentions playing a Balrog and someone else was playing a vampire and so on.

People always forget Gygax's follow up...

Based upon those early experiences, on p.21 in the AD&D DM's guide Gygax explained why allowing monsters as player characters was not a very good idea!

And he's still right some 40 years later.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 12, 2024, 02:20:32 PMThe problem I can predict with the freakshow approach is that it messes with the logic of how adventurers determine "is it a monster or not?" If the PCs look like monsters, then how do they keep track of what monsters are okay to kill? Do they wait to be attacked? Do monsters have red circles around them to indicate they're hostile?

Excellent response!!!

Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2024, 07:23:10 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 12, 2024, 06:40:55 PMComplaining about darkvision has become a bit of a cliche, but it really is a big culprit in this. It's just too damn useful, and being the only person in the party who doesn't have it is a huge pain in the ass. I wouldn't mind "everyone has darkvision", if everyone actually had it. Running dungeons for a party that's 70% darkvision becomes a hassle.

They should have stuck to infravision which was totally nullified by torches and other lighting.

That's certainly better; at least it's only one kind of vision to track at a time. But I'd rather have kept it down to elves, dwarves and orcs having "low-light vision", and keep true dark vision down to a small number of specialized underground monsters.

Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2024, 07:34:59 PMI think over time the assumption has more been this push that "you can be anything" and the DM has to accept it. And then the shicking disllusionment when the DM says No.

That seems to be a 5e (and maybe 4e) development, and I think it was a product of them pretending all player races were mechanically equal. 3.x had tons of templates for monstrous PCs, but my memory of it is that everyone understood they could easily unbalance the game, so there wasn't an expectation that DMs had to allow them.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 12, 2024, 09:30:34 AM

Quote from: finarvyn on July 12, 2024, 08:46:30 AMI mostly play humans and think that when 5E gives them stat bonuses and/or an extra feat that gives a mechanical reason to play them. Most of my players end up playing non-humans as "humans with extras" anyway.

I also usually play humans in standard fantasy, but it's largely for sentimental reasons. I like a "working class hero" character, and along with halflings, humans are the best at that.

Mechanically, I think a lot of games make a mistake in giving humans very dry/numerical features, bonus feats, stat/xp boosts and the like. Those aren't all that compelling compared to the more flavorful and/or convenient features that other races get.

I think the bigger issue is not giving the other races more negatives--negatives with some bite.  Now, I don't mind a group of mostly non-humans or even all non-humans.  Especially with players new to a system, because they naturally want to try things.  So far, I'm getting the results I want with my races, despite humans only getting a few dry bonuses.  Though it helps a lot when certain bonuses are hard to come by, like my resist bonuses.  I also try to make the races that are "most like humans" have the least drawbacks.

- Humans get a general purpose resistance bonus and an extra stat bonus--and no limitations.
- Dwarves are just short, exceptionally tough humans who can't use large weapons at all. 
- My wolf men hybrids are a lot like humans, except they have bonuses to perception and morale.
- My cat people are 3 foot tall, very quick, and the system hits hard on their lack of stature.
- Some minor shape changers that are mostly human with few bonuses and a bit of niche flavorful bonuses.
- Elves effectively can't wear metal armor, or if they do they give up most of their other features. 

That's pretty much the order that they become popular over time, too.  New players jump on elves or the cats or the shape changers for novelty. Then the next character they gravitate towards the wolf or dwarf. Then they start to appreciate that human.  After the first character, elf is by far the least popular--but in just enough to make the people who really want to play them feel like they stand out.

At no point did I steer anyone towards humans.  I just made them a great choice for about half the concepts that people would typically play, and an OK choice for almost any concept. 

Quote from: Jaeger on July 12, 2024, 07:42:31 PM

QuoteEven average players usually look at fantasy races and think "that's a human with more stuff, so why not?". If there are animal races in a game, someone will play them. If demi-humans are mechanically equal or better than humans, you will probably get a majority demihuman party. If you don't want a high percentage of non-humans, you have to give players a reason to play human. Either ban the races you don't want, or play a human-only or race-as-class game.

^THIS^

ForgottenF gets it.

Fantasy settings do not actually need as many fantastical races as people seem to think. You can see this in the 5e data from D&D beyond and the large player base of Baulders gate 3.

Data released by the Baulders gate 3 people, and D&D beyond show that The human fighter is the reigning and defending champion of all times. For races it's Humans, then Elves/Half-Elves, then Dragonborne, then Tieflings, then dwarves, and everything beyond that as a kinda grab-bag.

Worth noting that once their strength bonus was disappeared, virtually no one plays a Half-Orc anymore. That group has shifted to the Dragonborn that can literally breathe fire...

IMO: If you took away the racial ability of the dragonborn to breathe fire, that race would fall by the wayside right quick.

Thank you.

I considered mentioning in the first post (but cut for brevity) that the player races you don't see as much of in modern D&D are the ones that still carry a significant downside to playing them. The ones I think of are half-orcs (with the downside of being ugly) and halflings (with the downside of having to use small weapons).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 12, 2024, 08:37:14 PMI think the bigger issue is not giving the other races more negatives--negatives with some bite. 

So yeah, this post popped up while I was typing out the reply to other one ...and it's entirely true. Players will always gravitate towards what they haven't done recently/before.

I think one of the reasons that you get the predominantly non-human parties is that DMs don't want to enforce a lot of the purely roleplay ramifications of having a monstrous appearance or non-standard body configuration. You can chalk some of that up to social pressure, but at the same time it's just a hassle to have to constantly stop the game to single out one of your players for extra inconvenience based on their race.

When I started up my Dolmenwood campaign, a couple of players asked me how the various fairy races were treated in the setting. The book wants to say that mortals are in awe of them, but that struck me as being 1. a hassle and potentially derailing of NPC interactions, 2. handing the fairy race players a lot of free power, and 3. implausible based on them being free player options. So my rule going forward is that if a race is an option at character creation, it's something most people are going to be familiar with. Maybe not common, but you're not going to hear a record-scratch whenever you walk into an inn.

Quote from: Jaeger on July 12, 2024, 07:42:31 PMIt is not controversial to state that for a fantasy setting, you only really need 2-3 "non-human" races in your setting. And the overwhelming majority of the player base will be satisfied with the options.

For my setting, I really do need the almost-dozen non-human races I have. Some get played more than others, sure, but there are good lore reasons for them to be at least around, which makes them valid PC options.

But yes, unless your setting really needs that many, you probably only need a few playable non-humans around.

Greetings!

Yeah, I like Humanocentric player groups. It really goes a long way to keeping the campaign grounded in a more medieval or ancient world feel. Or Dark Ages feel. In my world of Thandor, thematically, I have different regions of the world that each have their own "Thematic Flavour." I also have over two dozen humanoid races that are not human, and theoretically available as Player Characters. I don't however, have them all available anywhere and everywhere, simultaneously. Each region of the world has their own specialized Race Menu. Depending on what region of the world the layers are starting the game in, determines the particular Race Menu that they can select their Characters from.

In this way, I tend to limit Player Character choices to about 6 or so different races.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

My problem with this is that almost all the other races when played are actually just played as human with special abilities. No thought or consideration on the races' cultural/social difference compared to the "humanocentric" norm. Elves are human with pointy ears and dark vision. Dwarves are short humans with beards and dark vision etc etc etc

Making it worse is that those that want the above mentioned 'free show' mindset is the deconstruction of the roots of those distinct social/cultural differences. You want to play an elf or dwarf sure but it had better not be anything like the good old Tolkien elf or dwarf (well the elf and dwarf in his books, it is fine if it is like the new woke show versions of those that are nothing like the btb).  Oh yeah and you can't have grown up in a distinctly elf dwarf orc etc etc etc dominated area where they are the primary race. It has to be from a place where EVERYONE is living at the same place shoulder to shoulder and living hugging ....

That, or they play it as an outlet for any and all antisocial antinormal actions and attitudes they can't act on in real life.

Additionally there is absolutely NO realistic view of physics and size etc. I remember hearing someone talking about their halfling paladin with an 18 strength talking about how in his game he was able to jump up and climb up on an ogre (or maybe hill giant) and then judo throw it .... I made the mistake of commenting that couldn't physically happen no matter how strong a 3 ft tall thing is trying to do that to a 9ft + sized thing. Of course that resulted in the normal 'you are just hateful raciest etc'

Personally I when I run (well ran since I'm running Traveller and Delta Green/CoC right now) I tend to more 'historical authentic' with humans being the vast majority with other races being the vastly outnumbered minority. Yes there is a pocket kingdom or 2 of elves and a few dwarf holds here and there and some fey like 'wild elves' in the deep dark woods. But mostly there are humans. That said a lot of the bad guys are human so be careful that group on the road ahead may be traveling merchants with guards, but they may also be a group of bandits.

Now even when playing that I still do have non human races, and yes some could be half breed 'monster' races. There are halforc half oblin and even halfogres. However, if you play one there are consequences.

That comes from back in the day when my DM let me play a half ogre from the ole Dragon Mag. It was great. I was a big strong and stupid tank (I normally played paladins or thieves or rangers). I used the old black and white movie Frankenstein's monster as my inspiration for role playing him. I could soak up a ton of damage and be a swath of destruction in a fight. However, when I went into town I was watched by EVERYONE and at times local bad guys used me being there as a cover to do their bad guy things and me get blamed for it just because I was an ogre. Outside a paladin or 2, one that died heroically holding a pass from monsters/demons while the rest of the party ran to warn and prepare the local town for the coming attack (and avoid a TPK) and a cavalier that was great in an Emperess Maud and King Stephen type setting, he is one of my most fondly remembered PCs.

Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2024, 07:05:04 PMHomophobe detected? We thought better of you.

Quote from: Lurker on July 12, 2024, 09:31:07 PMAdditionally there is absolutely NO realistic view of physics and size etc. I remember hearing someone talking about their halfling paladin with an 18 strength talking about how in his game he was able to jump up and climb up on an ogre (or maybe hill giant) and then judo throw it .... I made the mistake of commenting that couldn't physically happen no matter how strong a 3 ft tall thing is trying to do that to a 9ft + sized thing. Of course that resulted in the normal 'you are just hateful raciest etc'

One of the reason I have only six races is that I absolutely was not going to include a race that had mechanics not meaningful in the system.  And the system wasn't going to change to accommodate races.  This was specifically to address ForgottenF's point about purely role play limitations.  As in, I didn't want any race with that--because it does tend to get watered down--but also because I wanted the mechanical limitations to always be there no matter how much the GM moved the social side.  (And my social side, role play, is more limited by culture than race anyway, but I digress.) 

However, there's a huge swath of often excluded middle between realistic size penalties on one hand and completely "handwavium for player fun" on the other.  Strength and size penalties don't necessarily need to be all the way to  "realistic" to affect player actions.  And physical strength is as much about muscle movement and speed as it is raw power for many common game functions (such as hitting something in early D&D). It does help me a lot that I collapse Strength and Constitution into "Might", which means the stronger characters are tougher.

So take my 3 foot tall cat character.  No Might bonuses, but might get lucky on the rolls.  A cat with a high Might gets the bonus to hit and damage--albeit with a very limited weapon selection.  But they have no leverage, hefty encumbrance penalty (in a system where it matters), and most importantly, are incapable of dragging one of the other races off.  Had a cat almost die a few weeks ago because 3 out of 8 party members went down, they decided to retreat, and that the cat and one other character to hold off the foes while their conscious friends hauled off their unconscious allies.

I designed the system so that being a small character was feasible but with real drawbacks.  That gave me a window to design that cat race.  I had a bunch of other ideas that would fit in the world, but had no particularly mechanical hooks.  So those didn't make the cut.

My view has always been, if we're playing make believe, why not let people, within reason, play an elf or dwarf or even the more quirky races that have become popular. I guess the line people draw is what's reasonable.

Quote from: SHARK on July 12, 2024, 06:25:25 PMThe player culture has changed though, dramatically. That's the problem. Before, Player Monsters were a once-every-so-often thing.

Now, fucking weird monster races make up three quarters or more of every party, *and* such players play them as absolutely Woke fucking special snowflakes with autism and depravity dialed up to 12.

Do you see the difference? That's the difference. That's why so many old school players and DM's in recent years have become increasingly annoyed by this kind of dynamic.

I can that as a difference, but I see it as a bit of aesthetics that I don't particularly care about.

I played in 75% or even 100% non-human D&D parties even back in the old-school days, but sure, I'll believe that they're more common now. I suspect the main thing that kept them less common were the race limits and restrictions on classes. When I played a short summer campaign after my freshman year, I think we had an all-non-human / all-infravision party. Those limits were tossed in 3rd ed.

But I've enjoyed having a variety of races.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 12, 2024, 11:23:19 PMMy view has always been, if we're playing make believe, why not let people, within reason, play an elf or dwarf or even the more quirky races that have become popular. I guess the line people draw is what's reasonable.

I draw different lines with each campaign. Some campaigns have been human-only, some many different races. Even just within D&D, I'll vary based on my setting. My D&D campaign before last, humans and demi-humans were NPC-only and I only had other races - because in that setting, humans were evil. My last campaign had standard races (plus one or two more) but with a non-standard culture, and I had a party that was mostly a Tolkien-ish mix.

As I see it, it's frickin fantasy. There can be as many or as few humans as one wants. It's reasonable to have only humans, and it's also reasonable to have all sorts of creatures and have humans be the rare exception if they exist at all.