The Campaign Builder's Guild

I posted on this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=231170) on Enworld, and decided I'd like to hear from some of the people in the CBG.  What do you think about using humans as the "default" setting around which races are built, and what do you think about their genericness?

I think, in a way, it's very arrogant.  It assumes that humans are always more adaptable than others and almost better than.  

On the other hand, the other races were only created and developed in the minds of people as a variation on what humans are.  They exaggerate human traits and that is all.

I understand why so many people do it-- we, the people who read the stories and play the games, are human, and some people find it easier to relate to what's similar.

Problem is, that sort of thinking is everywhere nowadays, and it makes it easy to get into unfortunate, lazy habits.

Quote from: Ninja D!I think, in a way, it's very arrogant.  It assumes that humans are always more adaptable than others and almost better than.

That is exactly what I said.  In fact, in some ways I think designers have missed a key snag when assigning that designation: we think we are adaptable because we don't have any comparison right now.

I actually tend to see humans as terribly stubborn: we're resistant to change and we often get quite vehement about it.  Yet it seems to be something we assign more to ourselves and our group rather than all humans.  If I actually had to assign humans a stereotype I'd make them strict LN dwarven-ish with some tyrannical race mixed in.

It doesn't seem arrogant to me so much as a little uncreative. Other games have done humans as a race with specific skills.

ADOM (http://adom.de) for instance, gives humans bonuses to swim, cooking, and food preservation. (You can uh... easily die from drowning and starvation in ADOM.)

I think, but I'm pulling off of memory, that the World of Warcraft D20 conversion gave humans bonuses to Diplomacy and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty)--bonuses that make sense with how humans are portrayed in that setting.

I'm sure there's other examples, DnD has just always done it the other way, for whatever reason.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawThat is exactly what I said.  In fact, in some ways I think designers have missed a key snag when assigning that designation: we think we are adaptable because we don't have any comparison right now.

You hit the point well here. All races are just a variation on humans because they were created BY humans. They make a good standard of comparison because we innately understand them, because we ARE them. The problem, IMO, is when we extend that to making them the dominant race - just because they offer a standard of comparison doesn't mean they should be the most common, just common enough to provide that standard.

Quote from: Xathan WorldsmithThe problem, IMO, is when we extend that to making them the dominant race - just because they offer a standard of comparison doesn't mean they should be the most common, just common enough to provide that standard.

Your great point just made me think of an example: while humans may be dominant in our world, they are certainly not the most common single species.  There are certainly more Norway Rats in the world than humans.

I think it's just ripped straight from the medieval tradition - humans are "normal" and elves, dwarves, and so on are pseudo-magical creatures that occupy certain niches.  The reason humans are seen as adaptable is because the other races are conceived of as having more specific cultures - dwarves are centered around the earth and mining, for instance, and elves around forestry and nature, but humans are found in all these places doing all these things, and are thus the adaptable ones.  If elves, dwarves, etc. weren't so confined to these archetypal roles, there wouldn't be as much of a need for a generic cover-all race.

Some very cools settings I have seen use only humans.  

But most of our classic fantasy or SF stories use other races as foils for humans.  In various ways, we (humans) are describes as the underdogs, hard working empire builders, or whatever trait they want to shine in humanity is normally not shared by the other races.  Some of my favorite stories do this.

But long term settings, or stories that are set in long term settings, normally move past the 'other races as foils' stage.

And I agree with Brainface that this does not make a game bad, just uncreative.  I actually took the time to twist this, in that there was an earlier Age where some of the Powers in my setting created some of the races to be workers, and the human clans were supposed to inherit the earth and become the most dominant race [spoiler] this is after the elves (omwo~) were made first, and the plaanrs actually consider thema mistake...and none of the players know that the planars have actualy been trying to erase that mistake for thousands of years.  And the PLanars never really planned on the 'working folk' to overtake the Humans and the Omwo~...it just kind of happenned.[/spoiler]...but a few thousand years later, the Hobyts and Orcash are the most numerous races and in many ways most adaptable.  

Sometimes the game of creation becomes avoiding the (pit)traps of sameness, not just to make things bizarre, but to take those ingredients that are the most enjoyable and to move things around, but not to take the flavors out that the Players enjoy.

I also enjoy systems that give skill advantages to certain raceas and cultures.

I don't really mind them being portrayed as adaptable as a race: there are many different cultures around the world that show how we are both adaptable and diverse.
But on the other hand, that might as well have been any other classical or non-classical fantasy race, so i agree with Polycarp that the major problem is not so much that the humans are portrayed as adaptable but that the other races are portrayed as static stereotypes (mostly).
As far as using them as a physical template goes, non-humanoids very quickly lose credibility which is probably why the humanoid races are so much more popular. We need humanity as an anchor.
That is also why it is near impossible to make a world with no humans (in my experience anyway).  

Quote from: Crippled CrowI don't really mind them being portrayed as adaptable as a race: there are many different cultures around the world that show how we are both adaptable and diverse.

Compared to what?

I get the opposite feeling after reading myths and hearing about how people around the world react to certain situations: I think we're very much alike and the "diverseness" is really minor details.

Quote from: Crippled CrowAs far as using them as a physical template goes, non-humanoids very quickly lose credibility which is probably why the humanoid races are so much more popular. We need humanity as an anchor.
That is also why it is near impossible to make a world with no humans (in my experience anyway).  

While I agree that we need humanoids as an anchor, since it's difficult to imagine ourselves in the shoes of a physically alien creature, I don't think worlds with no humans are particularly difficult to make if you avoid having the major races fall into a rut.

I think another reason humans are so prevalent is because of the tendency to view humans as multicultural while other races are monocultural.  Forgotten Realms has no problems making human civilizations entirely different from one another, mostly by copying real world civilizations.  Humanoid races tend to never get this kind of detail - orcs are all savage and warlike, dwarves all are stoic, underground miners.  You can have humans that are culturally "Chinese" and humans that are culturally "Aztec," but rarely do you see that kind of variation in non-human races.

Yes this is one of the snags so common in games like this. I hate it so much that I made humans the only sentient species in unconquered realm. Even races like the Maeri are just a separate branch of humanity (and even within their branch there are different branches of society like there are with the other humans).

Anyhow, I find that doing all human worlds or worlds without humans at all (even just a world where the other species are just as racially diverse as the humans) tends to work out quite well. It's a nice refreshing break from such an irritating, yet ingrained, trope.