Author Topic: Are humans really a fantasy race?  (Read 2837 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Voron79

  • Contributing Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Are humans really a fantasy race?
« on: November 14, 2008, 04:14:35 PM »
In every RPG I ever played I like humans the most. They are the best to identify myself with. However, when playing in a party with elves, dwarfs and gnomes I kind of feel like I am the most strange of them all, but basically I'm the most standard!

Humans are the most basic and simple creatures in fantasy stories. In most fantasyworlds humans are more then 50% of the complete population. There stats are always the most standard, they aren't especially good or bad at anything. The most strange thing is that all the fantasy stuff gets compared with Tolkien's Middle Earth because they al have elves & orc's. But what about humans?

So my question, does somebody knows a RPG/fantasy world where humans are actually something special, and not something boring for people like me who can't really chose between all the other races?
Or what are your opinion of the fantasy style human race?

avisarr

  • Guest
Re: Are humans really a fantasy race?
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2008, 01:22:13 AM »
I've never actually read Talislanta (or whatever it's called) but the ads in Dragon Magazine for that game implied that the races were REALLY unique. And there were no elves. I also got the impression that there were no humans.

In any case, humans being the main race is pretty standard. No doubt because it's easiest for us to relate to humankind. All other races are compared to humans. But I see no reason why you couldn't have a world where races are a very tiny minority, or an enslaved race or not even present. I'm sure someone has done it.

Offline Bart

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Are humans really a fantasy race?
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2008, 04:46:42 PM »
I personally canít stand the standard Human race that just about every RPG system has Ė let alone has as its majority population. Iím a big proponent of different kinds of Humans and I will make them myself if the world Iím playing in doesnít provide them.

What I mean is simply this: there is no archetypical Human; there are many different kinds of Humans with different cultures, interests and values. A simple example if the setting is medieval Europe, there will be differences between Vikings, Saracens, Huns, Celts, Tatars etc. In D&D, Vikings would get a Strength bonus and resistance to cold while Celts would maybe have a Wisdom bonus (Celtic magic, druidism etc) and Huns would have a higher Constitution and get benefits for mounted combat. These are all Humans, but yet they are completely different from one another.

avisarr

  • Guest
Re: Are humans really a fantasy race?
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2008, 06:41:12 PM »
I agree...

and for the record, Khoras has : Alakubu, Anquarans, Aukarians, Bathyns, Chaddamarians, Corvenians, Easterners, Myrians, Northerners, Omarin, Padashani and the Tomarin... not to mention the Sea Gypsies, the Sayune and the wonderful, fun loving Mytharians who will make a drinking goblet from your skull.  ;)

I haven't included game stats for them, but it would be easy for a game master to write such stats up.

Offline tanis

  • Global Moderator
  • Forum Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Are humans really a fantasy race?
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2008, 03:15:00 AM »
I have to say this is a great question. And I really like Bart's point. We only divide by race or maybe by national origin nowadays, but originally, you were english, or french, or norse (viking) [all of which would be germanic], or a hun, or mongol, slav, slovak. greek, dorian, czech, arabic, egyptian, caananite, turk, kazakh, uzbek, ukraine, lienz cossack, etc. this is a longer list, but it's the same idea. these were all tribes of people with different cultural and physiological makeups. some settled an area to the point that the people became a nation, and some went even further, with the nation becoming a political state, but they all began as a people, a tribe, a separate kind of human, more or less like a subclass of homo sapien sapien, or cro-magnon man which is what we are.

Of course I'm also intrigued about the idea of humans who have no great physiological differences standing out as special for something other than mediocrity. I would probably go with something like they are smarter, or are better with some aspect of invention. maybe humans are the best toolmakers. or philosophers/thinkers. or they make the best peddlers and merchants. the best drivers and sailors. maybe they are the most skilled fighters (not the strongest, but the best with tactics and strategy, and/or the best with physical use of the weapons). the list could go on.

Regardless, the idea is that just because humans don't get bonuses on their abilities, such as str, dex, con, and so on if we are talking in terms of dnd, should we let that prevent them from having any outstanding features? If they have balanced, mediocre stats, give them a skill that no one else has. Or by the same token change the core dynamics of the game. if humans can't be the strongest, smartest, sturdiest, dextrous, wisest, or any of the things that are based on physical traits and developments because somebody has those traits, and they can't have a predisposition towards magic, the only non-natural, nonphysical gameplay dynamic, because the elves have that, create a separate force of nature which is nonphysical, which can compete with magic. preferably something which does not overlap or mimic magic's purpose in the scheme of gameplay dynamics. one example could be that humans have an innate ability to manipulate time, or maybe they can tamper with the fabric of reality, changing what is real and distorting what can and can't be done/exist/occur you get my drift.

While I would personally still go with the concept of sub-subspecies of humans, I would probably add some aspect of the second and third choices to give a little more oomph to the race.

This all comes together to make the standard being stand out. Now humans can still be the mediocre race they are and benefit from not being something else. The fact that adding a new game dynamic wouldn't affect the fact that humans would still be "standard" and would still suffer from ability mediocrity really adds to my liking of that third option, at least philosophically, because it works well with the other two to make a balanced change to the paradigm of humans in fantasy rpgs, and it also satisfies my wish to keep humans standard and mediocre, without dooming them to reduced potential as a powerful, useful character.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Offline Drul Morbok

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Are humans really a fantasy race?
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2016, 10:11:11 AM »
I have to admit, I don't like the idea of having players select from multiple "races", since
a) it tends to end up making those races a mainly tactical choice and rather exchangable as characters - unless you do have very good roleplayers in a group.
b) it assumes some common language, currency, value system and so on...which I do not necessarily want to assume as standard ropleplying background.

Yeah, elves tend to live 10 times as long as humans, at least in D&D 3rd. I think it was immortal in earlier versions. Never noticed any difference in how a char is played - except from maybe a less cautious use of effects that made the character "age one year" (as did "haste" effects in 2nd Edition IIRC).
Actually I never saw much point in introducing different life expectancies alltogether, except as a (rather empty) homage to...well, I guess it all boils down to Tolkien.

Elves and dwarfes might have some ancient grudge towards each other, but rarely is this being played beyond running gags and comic relief.

This is more about "core rule systems" than about full-fledged worlds of their own as Khoras, but to me it seems somewhat pointless to introduce an array of player races to chose from, and at the same time make sure that no (combination of) choices negatively effects the ability to form a group together, interact with and within society - and finally succesfully play a given campaign.

Purely judging from my own roleplaying experience and after some RL talk to roleplaying people, I used to think that players playing a dwarf/elf/half-orc/... effectively play a human in the shape of and with the abilities of a dwarf/elf/half-orc/..., so I ended up saying that players always play humans, but maybe with a dwarf/elf/half-orc/... syndrome in modern medical terms.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 10:17:22 AM by Drul Morbok »

Offline David Roomes

  • Khoras Creator
  • Forum Administrator
  • Forum Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 797
  • Karma: 8
    • MSN Messenger - David.Roomes@paccar.com
    • View Profile
    • The World of Khoras
    • Email
Re: Are humans really a fantasy race?
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2017, 05:28:04 PM »
I think some of it comes down to role playing ability. I have, unfortunately, seen players who are only interested in the pros and cons of a specific race. Those players are min/maxers and only look at numbers. They tend not to be role players.

I've also seen players that don't really have much role player in them. They play a dwarf, but it's just a "short human".

There are some good role players out there who really do breathe life into their character. When they play a dwarf or a saurian or whatever, they play it to the hilt. They view EVERYTHING through the eyes of someone of that race. It influences every decision, every action, every response. It can work really well. But again, it requires a good player with dedication to the role.
David M. Roomes
Creator of the World of Khoras