Would you play in a human only campaign?

[Cyborg Pirate]

I'm thinking of creating a world for a campaign, and populating it with only humans. This is because I wanted the world to center around groups of people from "our world", who were mysteriously transported to another dimension.

Thing is, such a world would lack all the diverse races of D&D and only supply humans (of various real world races, but with no differences in stats) as PC choices.


What I'm wondering is: How many of you folks out there would like to play in such a campaign? Are diverse races really neccecary, or are just humans ok?

[Kel_Arath]

i would play it, thought i would not like the lack of options i think it would be interesting for some real world stuff

[Stevenson]

Well, I like diverse races, but if the DM said humans only, then, eh well, humans only, whatever.

My question is how, in game terms, you plan on doing people from our world. We don't exactly have wizardly training, or skills with weapons. Would they just be commoners?

[Roethke]

Sure, the world we're in is plenty interesting with only humans.

If you're desperate for fluff, you can give stat-bonuses based on region/culture (not to bring up the races thing again).

The Midnight campaign does this, with, for example, the horsemen humans getting a bonus to dex along with some other stuff.

[Counterspin]

Lord knows I generally end up playing humans anyway, what with their sweet, delicious bonus feats, so why not. Interesting campaign idea too, by the by.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

95% of the time I'm a human anyway. Eliminating a bunch of standard fantasy stereotypes would probably force the campaign to focus more on original character concepts, too. This might be a great idea.

[Druid]

It sounds interesting and I'd play, though I'd prefer an only humanoid races campaign (basically limited to the things on the PHB and maybe a few from the XPH).

Edit: Do you mean a fantasy world with only humans and a few select monsters or a world with all the normal beasties but with humans as the only playable race? The first sounds interesting but I'd be kind of annoyed with the second.

[Morty]

I like varying non-human races, but human-only world is ceratinly more credible. I'd have no problem playing in human-only setting.

[Latronis]

ofc

i was original going to make my own homebrew world human only since the original world only had humans, but in the end i ended up dropping all the others in and taking over a culture of there own.

You could create a list of feats that humans from which culture get to pick the bonus feat from to help deferentiate the different cultures

[Lemur]

Sure I would. If you count Modern, or the Wheel of Time setting, I already have.

A lot of human only settings I've seen implement background feats and the like. Usually, each human has to select what's ordinarily their bonus feat on a "background feat" which is from a select list. Depending on where the person is from, the list of feats they can choose from is different. Typically, each background also gives a specific skill to the character, to always be considered a class skill for them.

If you're concerned about diversity, you could implement something like backgrounds to your campaign setting. Give each background some general themes, like physical and personality traits that people from those areas are generally known for, and it will be essentially the same as the racial diversity found in D&D.

[Cyborg Pirate]

Thanks sofar guys. @Stevenson: Actually, medieval humans. The idea is that various people from various countries and possibly time periods got transported (still fleshing out the exact reason) to a new and dangerous world, and are now setting out to survive and even dominate it. Ofcourse, since they are different groups of people from different countries, they don't exactly see eye to eye about who gets to dominate the world. The idea is for a game with lots of inter-faction conflicts and intrigue, combined with lots of exploring to understand this new world and figuring out its history. As for magic, I think I'll have it as such that the world is inherently magical, causing some people born in this world to be born with magical powers (sorcerors, clerics, druids) and that while exploring the world, people can discover the magics of a long gone race (wizards).

Still very much busy with the details.



[edit] oooo, not a single 'no' vote yet! I'm feeling very good about this world :D

[Zincorium]

Human only is a lot like core-only, low magic, or low wealth campaigns in that it's terrible if done for the wrong reasons and can be excellent if done for the right ones. Essentially, the application is intrinsically linked to the motivation.

D20 modern is an example of a game where it's assumed everyone is human, and everything else is an optional variant. Feat's and skill points all assume the the characters are human, etc.

Your version seems like it will work out fine. I personally like to play races other than human (I'm human now, why not go for something else?), but it wouldn't rub me the wrong way because it's an aspect of the game world. If you had elves/dwarves/etc in the game but still required everyone to be human, that would be different.

[Grr]

I prefer to set guidelines on campaigns when starting. Specifically things like racial party makeup. It's pretty damn contrived to have a half-orc adventuring with the orc-hating elf that also dislikes the halfling thief in the party who only hangs out with the big folk to protect him. All the while the human tries to play diplomat and the dwarf gets too drunk to care. Motivating that diverse of a party with anything beyond self-preservation and greed is an exercise in frustration.

My campaigns usually focus on a specific area of the campaign setting and players can only choose to play a race from that area. It limits the diversity and gives the group a cohesiveness that makes sense from in-game politics and personality, rather than a lumped together group of misfits and mooks.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'm a big fan of Human-only. It annoys the hell out of me that every single damned fantasy world has to have Dwarves and Elves in it.

[Ponce]

I like the Broken Mold folklore. If you consider Humans as the blank model for the other humanoid races, I see no reason why a Human-only setting wouldn't be just as good. I would play it.

[Fax Celestis]

I'd be okay with it, but I'd prefer otherwise. I do like strange and unique races (thri-kreen, catfolk, dromites, and shadowswyfts being some of my favorites), but I'd play a humans-only campaign.

You'd get a hands-down Yes from me if you had eugenically modified humans such as those presented in Etherscope.

[Cyborg Pirate]

You'd get a hands-down Yes from me if you had eugenically modified humans such as those presented in Etherscope.

What are they?


I like how the poll is a tie between 'Yes I'd love to' and 'Meh okay' at the moment

[Dausuul]

I'm quite happy with just humans. One word of warning, though... do not allow Bane (Human) weapons in a heavily human-dominated world, and do not allow rangers to take humans as a favored enemy. And, most especially, do not allow a ranger with humans as a favored enemy to get his hands on a Bane (Human) bow.

Believe me, I speak from dire experience.

[Lolth]

It would help me in my endless angsting over what Race to play, that's for sure!

[Fax Celestis]

What are they?

There's the Alpha humans, which have a variety of good characteristics (+2 cha, as well as some racial abilities, on top of the standard human racial traits), but start with an experience penalty of 1000 points (which is different from LA+1).

There's Beta humans, which are exactly the same as PHB humans.

There's Gamma humans, which are humans genetically crossed with rats. They're shorter and tougher, resistant to disease and poisons, but are not as intelligent and don't get skills or a feat like normal humans.

There's Delta humans, which are humans genetically crossed with dogs. They're slightly shorter, quicker, tenacious, and have features like Scent. They're physically weaker than normal humans, and don't receive the bonus feat or skills.

And there's Epsilon humans, which are humans genetically crossed with horses. They're tall, strong, tough, and dumb.They don't receive the bonus feat or skills.

[TSGames]

33 votes and only one dissenter. Bring him forth for he is a witch!

[Kiero]

Not only would I play it in a heartbeat, that's my preference. The only place I've seen non-human races I liked was in Steven Erikson's Malazan Empire series. Otherwise I could do without elves, dwarves and halflings, or any other flimsy monoculture analogues.

Exactly this thread is on RPGnet right now.

[Gryndle]

That kind of setting would not be for me, and I'd have to pass.

I get stuck with beign a human in RL, and I don't like that campaign either :/

Too much of my cynicism about humanity transfers to my hobbies, i'm afraid.

I absolutely refuese to play a human in D&D.

[Indon]

How do you know they're a witch until you've weighed them?

I've run human-only campaigns. I think they go well with a low-magic environment in particular.

I also have a friend who runs all-human campaigns, and he prefers to maintain racial diversity with cultural options; +1 to one stat, -1 to another, +to a couple skills, that sort of thing.

[Da Beast]

I'm quite happy with just humans. One word of warning, though... do not allow Bane (Human) weapons in a heavily human-dominated world, and do not allow rangers to take humans as a favored enemy. And, most especially, do not allow a ranger with humans as a favored enemy to get his hands on a Bane (Human) bow.

Believe me, I speak from dire experience.

My God, favored enemy may become a worthwhile ability! I personally don't think that rangers are strong enough to be problematic even if favored enemy did apply to every enemy. What went wrong with it in your campaign?

[Grr]

Just change favored enemy human to be specific to kingdoms or cultures, instead of humans in general.

[goat]

Oooh, could have people objecting to D&D based racism.

But I can just imagine one of my characters wielding a bane(ginger) weapon...

[Renegade Paladin]

I've played campaigns where all the characters were human, but that wasn't by DM fiat; the bonus feat and skill points are incredibly attractive.

[Grr]

Oooh, could have people objecting to D&D based racism.

So what? It's your campaign. Do what you want. Getting upset over racism in a game on fictional cultures where you can create spiked tentacles that forcefully intrude upon the body is, how do I say this... ridiculous?

[clarkvalentine]

I'm running a human-only campaign, set in the world of A Game of Thrones. It's working beautifully.