I've always been interested in wholly alien settings like Talislanta without any trappings of a human culture among the people, but I've seen numbers that humans are the most-played race in D&D over the years and have heard word of mouth that some players flatly refuse to play a non-human character. Plus Talislanta's never been a commercial success to the best of my knowledge. So I'm curious about folks' opinions on whether a setting must include humans in it to have a hope of doing well.
Quote from: Valatar on March 30, 2025, 06:45:07 AMI've always been interested in wholly alien settings like Talislanta without any trappings of a human culture among the people, but I've seen numbers that humans are the most-played race in D&D over the years and have heard word of mouth that some players flatly refuse to play a non-human character. Plus Talislanta's never been a commercial success to the best of my knowledge. So I'm curious about folks' opinions on whether a setting must include humans in it to have a hope of doing well.
I don't think that a setting needs to be human or have humans. However I think that there is a couple of difficult problems in making a no-humans setting work. The first is that you need to have some way for the audience to connect with the characters but not be so like people as to just be seen as humans in costumes. Disney and Dreamworks movies with anthropomorphized animals are not no-human but in fact very human centric.
The other issue I've seen with no-human settings is that they get stuck on a single theme. Being set around a single theme is great for exploring the subject, excellent for examining a nebulous concept from another point of view, but this limits role play quite a bit. This isn't unique to no-humans settings but nearly all no-human settings are designed like this that I've seen. I think a great example of single themed material shunting the RPG experience is Free League's Bladerunner game. It's excellent for a couple of one-shots but it will wear thin very quickly.
I've outlined challenges as I see them but I don't really have any solutions. However, it's a really cool thought experiment.
I don't think games absolutely need humans for a setting to work and I personally prefer to play non-humans in RPGs myself and always have. That said... I don't think it's a good idea for a setting where humans *could* be included but specifically aren't simply because it limits your potential audience for what seems to be an arbitrary reason even if it isn't. That's not an issue in games like Mausritter or Household where playing a human isn't possible. Are there visually "near-humans" ala elves, dwarf, and halfling equivalents for people to play that traditionally humans to use as close enough stand ins or is the setting going full alien with people playing whisps of air and blobs of goo? I think the problem is compounded the further away from humanity visually/asthetically you get for some players... and I say that as someone who wants to play a gasbag with tentacles if I ever return to Starfinder with their upcoming 2e.
Thinking about it, I have participated in a no-human Spelljammer campaign that lasted a bit over a year. That was just how it played out and I never even noticed until reflecting just now.
So for the length of that campaign at least, a no-human setting worked just fine for us.
The only settings I can think of that are always non-human are Transformers, Ritter Mouse, and that kiddy one about playing stuffed animals that come alive to protect their human child from monsters/bad dreams at night.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 30, 2025, 09:57:29 AMThe only settings I can think of that are always non-human are Transformers, Ritter Mouse, and that kiddy one about playing stuffed animals that come alive to protect their human child from monsters/bad dreams at night.
All of those settings have humans, they're just not available as PCs.
By that standard, Vampire: the Masquerade and almost all of the World of Darkness games don't have humans as a PC option. V:tM is one of the few RPGs that came close to rivaling D&D in popularity. There are a huge number of similar monster-playing games around as well, from Whispering Vault (where you play vigilante-ish monsters) to Spookshow (where you play ghosts who work as spies).
There's also the Amber Diceless RPG, and a genre around that. Pundit's Lords of Olympus is a variant of that. Again, there's technically humans in the setting, but they're too puny to be PCs.
Humans serve as a baseline for regular people with good reason. All players are human and can thus relate to the "normal" behaviors of the general population. Without that familiar frame of reference it becomes more difficult to define other races. Even if no one plays one, humans in a setting provide that backdrop by which other races are compared.
I prefer settings with diverse human cultures over settings where aliens are funny looking humans.
Humans are 100% required for a setting to have commercial success. Generally speaking they must be available as player characters as well. Games where your character was born a human, raised as a human, and then became a superhero / found out he was from planet Vegeta or Krypton / was bitten by a vampire or turned into a werewolf- in all these cases you are still playing a 100% a human.
I think the only example in this thread of a game where you actually aren't a human is Transformers. And I'll actually argue with this example:
1- The transformers seem to basically be humans, aside from the fact that they are robots. They aren't alien, mentally speaking, even in the slightest. When an autobot reminisces about his lost world, it's the same emotion and thoughts as a human in his place.
2- Transformers isn't actually a commercial success as a roleplaying setting, at all.
As far as "can you have a good plot, setting, and roleplay, in a world like Talislanta that went through some effort to actually not quite have humans", I think you definitely can, but I think these places are at the edge of the genre in part because of this.
I never played it but I think Jorune had no humans and the ads in dragon made it look a bit unapproachable. Like you have that much more to learn just to get to a sort of base knowledge required to play.
Although I can see this working well if it were all Dwarves or all Emlbesr something.
Quote from: Valatar on March 30, 2025, 06:45:07 AMSo I'm curious about folks' opinions on whether a setting must include humans in it to have a hope of doing well.
Yes.
No.
Isn't Mouseguard a thing?
Quote from: Fheredin on March 30, 2025, 03:44:31 PMIsn't Mouseguard a thing?
Unless I'm mistaken, Mouseguard is basically just medieval fantasy with mice who act just like humans.
The closest I've gotten with any success among players was a setting where all the pureblooded humans (and most of the pureblooded demihumans) had gone extinct, but what remained were nations of half-elves, half-dwarves (non-sterile muls), tallfellow halflings (canonically halfling/human hybrids in at least some settings), and half-orcs who had ethnically distinct kingdoms in a cold war.
Basically, humans with a few exotic features around the edges.
Quote from: Venka on March 30, 2025, 12:30:10 PMI think the only example in this thread of a game where you actually aren't a human is Transformers. And I'll actually argue with this example:
1- The transformers seem to basically be humans, aside from the fact that they are robots. They aren't alien, mentally speaking, even in the slightest. When an autobot reminisces about his lost world, it's the same emotion and thoughts as a human in his place.
2- Transformers isn't actually a commercial success as a roleplaying setting, at all.
The Transformers RPG allows you to play a human as a component of a two-part "Binary-Bonded" (e.g., Headmaster) character.
Didn't Palladium's TMNT After the Bomb feature a world without humans? IIRC, all surviving inhabitants were mutated animals of some sort.
As a GM I have zero interest in running a setting that doesn't feature humans. As a player, I have never played anything but humans.
Quote from: Ruprecht on March 30, 2025, 02:13:06 PMAlthough I can see this working well if it were all Dwarves or all Emlbesr something.
One of the best RPGs I ever played in was Burning Wheel where it was all Dwarves. If anyone has not tried it, an all the same species game is great for doing a deep dive on that culture and society.
Quote from: BadApple on March 30, 2025, 07:09:15 AMQuote from: Valatar on March 30, 2025, 06:45:07 AMI've always been interested in wholly alien settings like Talislanta without any trappings of a human culture among the people, but I've seen numbers that humans are the most-played race in D&D over the years and have heard word of mouth that some players flatly refuse to play a non-human character. Plus Talislanta's never been a commercial success to the best of my knowledge. So I'm curious about folks' opinions on whether a setting must include humans in it to have a hope of doing well.
I don't think that a setting needs to be human or have humans. However I think that there is a couple of difficult problems in making a no-humans setting work. The first is that you need to have some way for the audience to connect with the characters
That's it right there. Players need to connect with their characters, and the less human the characters are the harder this is. Without actual humans or something really close I don't think a game can become popular.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 30, 2025, 04:42:05 PMDidn't Palladium's TMNT After the Bomb feature a world without humans? IIRC, all surviving inhabitants were mutated animals of some sort.
IIRC After the Bomb had a human "empire" that was basically a couple cities' worth of surviving humans in it that served as an antagonist group, so humans were around, just not really suitable as PCs.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 30, 2025, 04:42:05 PMDidn't Palladium's TMNT After the Bomb feature a world without humans? IIRC, all surviving inhabitants were mutated animals of some sort.
Yes, it does. However, there are still humans in the form of the technological Empire of Humanity that have power armor, tanks, and jet fighters. They're just numerically outnumbered by mutant animals.
I had forgotten about that one.
Quote from: Venka on March 30, 2025, 12:30:10 PMHumans are 100% required for a setting to have commercial success. Generally speaking they must be available as player characters as well. Games where your character was born a human, raised as a human, and then became a superhero / found out he was from planet Vegeta or Krypton / was bitten by a vampire or turned into a werewolf- in all these cases you are still playing a 100% a human.
World-of-Darkness werewolves were not born human and raised as humans, and then turned into a werewolf. They are generally born into their tribe and raised among a society of werewolves hidden among humans. Werewolf society has their own traditions and structures. The same is true of the different types of World-of-Darkness Changelings.
Also, regarding vampires... Technically they were born and raised as humans. But say I'm playing a centuries-old Nosferatu that feeds on blood and lives in sewers. The experience of play is significantly different from playing a typical human.
A dwarf or half-orc is more relatable as a character than such a character.
Quote from: Mishihari on March 30, 2025, 07:56:41 PMThat's it right there. Players need to connect with their characters, and the less human the characters are the harder this is. Without actual humans or something really close I don't think a game can become popular.
The big question is what counts as "close to human"?
Are humans mandatory for a setting to succeed? Well no, unless the setting only has humans, which is possible. If the setting has other sapient species then humans are not really needed, if the referee is somehow expected to run goblins, giants and dragons in a believable manner, why not the players? It is escapism and I am not sure that it is impossible for a human to think in another mindset, writers do all the time.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 30, 2025, 04:01:10 PMQuote from: Fheredin on March 30, 2025, 03:44:31 PMIsn't Mouseguard a thing?
Unless I'm mistaken, Mouseguard is basically just medieval fantasy with mice who act just like humans.
The closest I've gotten with any success among players was a setting where all the pureblooded humans (and most of the pureblooded demihumans) had gone extinct, but what remained were nations of half-elves, half-dwarves (non-sterile muls), tallfellow halflings (canonically halfling/human hybrids in at least some settings), and half-orcs who had ethnically distinct kingdoms in a cold war.
Basically, humans with a few exotic features around the edges.
I think that this argument drives us way past useful discussion and into semantics because you could describes every fantasy race in an RPG out there as, "basically humans with a few exotic features." Elves are humans with pointy ears and usually some sort of elitist background. Dwarves are short and strong humans with beards. The list goes on and on.
The only solid thing about non-human races is the flavor.
I haven't played them but aren't Mutant: Year Zero and the other game(s) in that line devoid of humans? IIRC every character is a mutant animal of some kind.
Quote from: Valatar on March 30, 2025, 06:45:07 AMI've always been interested in wholly alien settings like Talislanta without any trappings of a human culture among the people, but I've seen numbers that humans are the most-played race in D&D over the years and have heard word of mouth that some players flatly refuse to play a non-human character. Plus Talislanta's never been a commercial success to the best of my knowledge. So I'm curious about folks' opinions on whether a setting must include humans in it to have a hope of doing well.
Well, depends on what you mean by "include humans." I would argue that humans are not capable of thinking in any way other than like "humans," which is why these kinds of discussions always degenerate into a discussion of what "human" means. I'll approach the problem from a slightly different angle. Can a setting be successful if it requires players to think outside of their normal comfort zone or cultural context. And the answer to this, for several reasons, is a hard NO.
First, most players will need some kind of touchstone or starting point to allow them to internalize whatever differences are present in non-human behaviors and cultures. This is why Star Wars and Star Trek aliens are mostly just people with funny heads and one specific "alien" trait (and why most anthropomorphic games feature animals that act pretty much just like humans). A shout out here to one author I think did aliens pretty well, C. J. Cherryh. Her Chanur series had anthropomorphic cat-people who were protagonists (and pretty much human), but also methane-breathing aliens who communicated in matrices read in multiple directions and were completely unpredictable... which would be far more like the challenge of truly "alien" thought. I've often said a person or GM who wanted to play a truly alien mind should just get a set of random behavior tables, as it would best simulate the difference in thinking between truly alien intelligence and humanity (we'd probably never be able to make sense of what they did and why). So, without the touchstone of a mostly "human" species, you're going to have trouble with players knowing what to do.
Secondly, popular (as in "well-selling," which seems to be implied in your "doing well") games must be... popular. They must appeal to a broad range of people. And most people are lazy. There has always been that one guy in every gaming group I've ever been in who wants to do the bare minimum to get by. And these folks need to buy your game in order for it to be successful. So, if the average person would have to work really hard to play in your setting, it'll always be a niche product. The most you'll ever be able to ask of this type of player is to pretend to have no emotions, or pretend to be aggressive and warlike. To speak in nothing but iambic pentameter and think in terms of spontaneous division as a reproduction strategy...good luck!
Quote from: jhkim on March 31, 2025, 01:09:54 AMQuote from: Venka on March 30, 2025, 12:30:10 PMHumans are 100% required for a setting to have commercial success. Generally speaking they must be available as player characters as well. Games where your character was born a human, raised as a human, and then became a superhero / found out he was from planet Vegeta or Krypton / was bitten by a vampire or turned into a werewolf- in all these cases you are still playing a 100% a human.
World-of-Darkness werewolves were not born human and raised as humans, and then turned into a werewolf. They are generally born into their tribe and raised among a society of werewolves hidden among humans. Werewolf society has their own traditions and structures. The same is true of the different types of World-of-Darkness Changelings.
Also, regarding vampires... Technically they were born and raised as humans. But say I'm playing a centuries-old Nosferatu that feeds on blood and lives in sewers. The experience of play is significantly different from playing a typical human.
A dwarf or half-orc is more relatable as a character than such a character.
Most players ignore that stuff anyway, and even the most recent editions have unilaterally forced you to start off as a newbie who was only recently recruited. In the case of werewolves, their initiation rituals typically involving locking the new werewolf in with groups of innocent people to force a massacre in order to break their sanity. Sound like really unlikable assholes that nobody would actually want to play.
Quote from: Hague on March 31, 2025, 08:41:39 AMI haven't played them but aren't Mutant: Year Zero and the other game(s) in that line devoid of humans? IIRC every character is a mutant animal of some kind.
Later books seem to allow other character types, including humans and robots.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 31, 2025, 09:52:07 AMthe most recent editions have unilaterally forced you to start off as a newbie who was only recently recruited. In the case of werewolves, their initiation rituals typically involving locking the new werewolf in with groups of innocent people to force a massacre in order to break their sanity.
Source?
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 31, 2025, 09:54:31 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 31, 2025, 09:52:07 AMthe most recent editions have unilaterally forced you to start off as a newbie who was only recently recruited. In the case of werewolves, their initiation rituals typically involving locking the new werewolf in with groups of innocent people to force a massacre in order to break their sanity.
Source?
https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/horror-in-games-is-there-a-line.9733/post-459454
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 31, 2025, 10:00:48 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on March 31, 2025, 09:54:31 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 31, 2025, 09:52:07 AMthe most recent editions have unilaterally forced you to start off as a newbie who was only recently recruited. In the case of werewolves, their initiation rituals typically involving locking the new werewolf in with groups of innocent people to force a massacre in order to break their sanity.
Source?
https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/horror-in-games-is-there-a-line.9733/post-459454
To zoom in on the list, it looks like I have to register for their forums. OK, that shouldn't be too hard. After that, since I have the 5e book, I'll look through it and see how what's in the book compares to that list.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 31, 2025, 11:20:02 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 31, 2025, 10:00:48 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on March 31, 2025, 09:54:31 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 31, 2025, 09:52:07 AMthe most recent editions have unilaterally forced you to start off as a newbie who was only recently recruited. In the case of werewolves, their initiation rituals typically involving locking the new werewolf in with groups of innocent people to force a massacre in order to break their sanity.
Source?
https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/horror-in-games-is-there-a-line.9733/post-459454
To zoom in on the list, it looks like I have to register for their forums. OK, that shouldn't be too hard. After that, since I have the 5e book, I'll look through it and see how what's in the book compares to that list.
I don't have the 5e book, just 1e. Here's the text from the image, which is said to be from Werewolf 5e character creation.
Quote10 Dramatic Turning Points
If you want a First Change for a character that has lasting consequences, use these suggestions either as inspiration or verbatim:
1. They kicked you while you were down one too many times. Their laughter turned to screams as you rose as something much bigger, and much deadlier than a bully.
2. It was a horrible car wreck. You only survived because you instinctively changed the moment before impact. The other passengers did not.
3. Everything came down to this moment: your grades, your future and more. The first slide was in the wrong place and everything went wrong from there until all you heard were screams and all you saw was red.
4. The feelings were too intense. You suddenly knew you had to run away from them even though you were willing to share your bodies with each other. You never saw your first love again.
5. You didn't expect to walk into a robbery when you hit the corner store at 2am. They weren't expecting you to turn into a howling beast when they smashed you in the face with a gun.
6. For a week you dreamed you were a wolf running through the forest. One morning you woke up thirty miles from home from your family on the side of the road and never looked back.
7. You weren't expecting them to lock the doors at the wedding. It was at that moment the long line of Garou in your family bloodline revealed their strange tradition about the First Change. To prove you were worthy of the wolf, you had to kill your way out of the room after they triggered the change. After that, nothing the Wyrm can do fazes you.
8. It was just supposed to be a summer job. But then you began to smell the blood of the butchers everywhere. You gorged yourself on raw meat one day and transformed when your boss found you.
9. They tricked you into thinking it was a camping trip. They drugged your food and water, put a bag on your head and then left you in the wilderness. They said it was for your own good, to help you become the wolf, but you quietly seek your revenge someday, even though you survived.
10. It was obvious what they were doing to the young people put in their care and that nobody in power would take action. You bottled up your rage until you convinced them to do the same thing to you. You let it all out in the secluded spot, covering the car in their blood and your claw marks.
So it looks like BoxCrayonTales is talking about #7 in the list of optional First Change experiences if the player wants a First Change with lasting consequences. So this is not typical (as BoxCrayonTales suggested) but it is possible.
EDITED TO ADD: To the bigger question, I own Werewolf 1e and played in one campaign in the 2000s, and two or three one-shot games since then. I'd never heard of such a ritual, but it was understood that werewolves were brutal and that there were a few who thought little of killing humans in the cause of fighting the Wyrm. PCs were generally more humane.
Quote from: Valatar on March 30, 2025, 06:45:07 AMSo I'm curious about folks' opinions on whether a setting must include humans in it to have a hope of doing well.
Doing well commercially? Yes, humans are required - or non-humans who are so "human" as to make no difference, i.e. stocky bearded humans, hairy-footed short humans, pointy-eared nimble humans, humans with lycanthropy, etc.
No matter the game, humanity remains the baseline and non-humans are defined in terms how they differ from that baseline. The further all of the character options deviate from that baseline, the weirder and more uncomfortable that game will be for many potential players. Doesn't make it a bad game but it limits its appeal.
Quote from: Ruprecht on March 30, 2025, 02:13:06 PMI never played it but I think Jorune had no humans and the ads in dragon made it look a bit unapproachable. Like you have that much more to learn just to get to a sort of base knowledge required to play.
Jorune has regular humans as a player race option.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 30, 2025, 11:26:23 AMHumans serve as a baseline for regular people with good reason. All players are human and can thus relate to the "normal" behaviors of the general population. Without that familiar frame of reference it becomes more difficult to define other races. Even if no one plays one, humans in a setting provide that backdrop by which other races are compared.
I agree.
I only like settings with white males as the protagonists.
But for a real role-playing challenge try a setting of inanimate objects. Just use GURPS to stat up a circa -1000 point character (all disads including lack of limbs and lack of bodily functions).
GM: "What do you do?"
Player: "..."
GM: "Excellent role playing. 1 character point awarded."
Quote from: Spooky on April 01, 2025, 01:35:29 AMBut for a real role-playing challenge try a setting of inanimate objects. Just use GURPS to stat up a circa -1000 point character (all disads including lack of limbs and lack of bodily functions).
GM: "What do you do?"
Player: "..."
GM: "Excellent role playing. 1 character point awarded."
Bonus xp if you don't try to cheat by using some sort of psychic/magic/super powers to affect the world like a minmaxer. I'd only do this in a campaign though where you get automatic xp just for attending so I could take a nap for full character/RP immersion.
Quote from: RNGm on April 01, 2025, 09:09:59 AMQuote from: Spooky on April 01, 2025, 01:35:29 AMBut for a real role-playing challenge try a setting of inanimate objects. Just use GURPS to stat up a circa -1000 point character (all disads including lack of limbs and lack of bodily functions).
GM: "What do you do?"
Player: "..."
GM: "Excellent role playing. 1 character point awarded."
Bonus xp if you don't try to cheat by using some sort of psychic/magic/super powers to affect the world like a minmaxer. I'd only do this in a campaign though where you get automatic xp just for attending so I could take a nap for full character/RP immersion.
GURPS doesn't have XP.
I'd play Maggie Cheung's scooter seat in 1984..
No you do not need humans.
Bunnies & Burrows?
Albedo?
I don't understand the question.
Yes you need humans for it to be commercially successful. From personal experience for *decades* of pimping and writing Talislanta... *on this very forum*... everyone says the same thing.
"Still no Elves... but look at all the elves." (with a hurr hurr) when in reality if we assume it's true (it's not), then you can't even have a game with all Elves and no humans and win commercially.
Or "It's too weird." When in reality the narrative constraints of Talislanta were effectively replicated in Forgotten Realms (Netheril) where there was a magical apocalypse that reshaped the order of things and the *only* functional difference was the fact that Netheril was expressly human. Now this doesn't mean that is the reason that people don't play Talislanta, I'm merely pointing out the irony that Talislanta has all the elements of "human" institutions, so much so that I simply said Cymrillians are "humans" and nothing else, the game would not be affected.
Something about the visual presentation of the races seems to matter that *humans* seems to be a wall for engagement. I'm not saying it can't be overcome, I've certainly converted every player that has sat at my table over these many years, to Talislanta, but there has never been a time where the "eyebrow raise" hasn't occurred when trying to "get into" the game.
I've even tested this out, by running a "home-brew" with standard D&D races in the *exact* same setting with the usual Talislanta races replaced by D&D familiar races - they arrived via Spelljammer, and *NO ONE NOTICED* and they were saying "This planet is kickass! we should live here." Then eventually I told them "IT'S TALISLANTA you FUCKHEADS!"
Even here on this forum, lots of peoples say "Oh yeah, Talislanta. I'd love to play it, never got around to it." or the usual "It's weird" etc. But ultimately it's the same thing. There is *something* about it, and my contention is that there are no overt *HUMANS* in it, despite the fact the primary race are humans with greenskin and slightly pointed ears, and all of their cultural institutions are *standard* things seen in high-fantasy settings. Kingdoms, Empires, Mageocracies, S&S motifs. Nothing here is new, it's just Talislanta did a lot of it early on in the RPG sphere.
Most of the games that are fantasy that people are citing as examples are not really "successful" in the commercial sense. WoD doesn't count, because you start as a human and one of the goals is dealing with your condition from the context of being human.
Talislanta is a red herring. The game bills itself as more strange, unique, and alien than it actually is. This imposes an artificial barrier to entry which limits its success.
Then, when I read the Player's Guide, I got up to 4 human subraces and 2 elf subraces before I finished the letter D. In a way, that makes the product a little dissatisfying, because it's not really living up to the "alien fantasy" hype. Once you get your head wrapped around how these races which totally aren't humans even though they look like humans are actually humans, you realize that these other races are elves.
It's like that South Park episode with the hippie infestation, where the college know-it-all hippies are trying to explain their revolutionary post-capitalist communist utopia.
I remember playing ElfQuest as a kid, and I don't recall any humans in that setting.
Quote from: tenbones on April 02, 2025, 03:08:14 PMYes you need humans for it to be commercially successful. From personal experience for *decades* of pimping and writing Talislanta... *on this very forum*... everyone says the same thing.
"Still no Elves... but look at all the elves." (with a hurr hurr) when in reality if we assume it's true (it's not), then you can't even have a game with all Elves and no humans and win commercially.
Or "It's too weird." When in reality...
Speaking only for myself, it's not too weird, it's just...too much. I've tried diving into Talislanta a couple of times since I first saw you mention it, and probably will again. I'm pretty sure I could get into Talislanta if I got to play it with a GM who already knows and loves the setting, but I don't think I'm going to get it by reading the books.
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 02, 2025, 05:12:35 PMI remember playing ElfQuest as a kid, and I don't recall any humans in that setting.
Humans turn up in the early chapters of the comic, but they have such a minor role in the story I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't bother putting them in the RPG. Humans in
Elfquest are still at a paleolithic level of development, and mostly exist to be a threat to the protagonists. It's a really fun approach, and one I've adopted for some of my own stuff. Kind of a reverse I Am Legend.
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 02, 2025, 05:12:35 PMI remember playing ElfQuest as a kid, and I don't recall any humans in that setting.
There are in the comics. But they are cave men.
Quote from: Omega on April 03, 2025, 04:43:48 AMQuoteI remember playing ElfQuest as a kid, and I don't recall any humans in that setting.
There are in the comics. But they are cave men.
Yes, cavemen, but not dumb, and some are perfectly well-rounded and significant characters.
Quote from: tenbones on April 02, 2025, 03:08:14 PMMost of the games that are fantasy that people are citing as examples are not really "successful" in the commercial sense. WoD doesn't count, because you start as a human and one of the goals is dealing with your condition from the context of being human.
That's true of Vampire and Wraith, but not of Werewolf and Changeling (plus Promethean and possibly some of the others).
Just to review cases:
- Werewolf and Changeling are the most significant of the World of Darkness line. The PCs live disguised as humans, but were born as other beings and have their own societies hidden in the human world.
- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and other anthropomorphic animal games. Mausritter and Mouse Guard seem fairly successful. Sanguine Productions has a multi-edition line including Albedo and Ironclaw.
- There are some games of playing superhuman beings where humans are largely powerless. The most successful are Amber Diceless and In Nomine. In Amber Diceless, the PCs are Amberites or Chaosites in a multiverse where Earth and ordinary humans exist, but are mere shadows of true reality. In Nomine has the PCs as angels and demons.
Quote from: jhkim on April 03, 2025, 08:03:39 AMQuote from: tenbones on April 02, 2025, 03:08:14 PMMost of the games that are fantasy that people are citing as examples are not really "successful" in the commercial sense. WoD doesn't count, because you start as a human and one of the goals is dealing with your condition from the context of being human.
That's true of Vampire and Wraith, but not of Werewolf and Changeling (plus Promethean and possibly some of the others).
Just to review cases:
- Werewolf and Changeling are the most significant of the World of Darkness line. The PCs live disguised as humans, but were born as other beings and have their own societies hidden in the human world.
- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and other anthropomorphic animal games. Mausritter and Mouse Guard seem fairly successful. Sanguine Productions has a multi-edition line including Albedo and Ironclaw.
- There are some games of playing superhuman beings where humans are largely powerless. The most successful are Amber Diceless and In Nomine. In Amber Diceless, the PCs are Amberites or Chaosites in a multiverse where Earth and ordinary humans exist, but are mere shadows of true reality. In Nomine has the PCs as angels and demons.
While I admit that there are different ways of interpreting the title of the first post, I'd point out that alot of the games you mentioned have humans in the setting... you're just not incentivized/supposed/allowed to PLAY them... but they're still there.
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 02, 2025, 05:12:35 PMI remember playing ElfQuest as a kid, and I don't recall any humans in that setting.
I can also totally imagine someone playing Tolkien-based games where everyone is an elf (or hobbit), although humans would be around. It's not even that far off from his writings.
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 02, 2025, 05:12:35 PMI remember playing ElfQuest as a kid, and I don't recall any humans in that setting.
I haven't played the RPG but I read the first dozen or so books. Conflict between elves and humans is a major driver to the story. I wouldn't expect to see them as PCs though
Quote from: jhkim on April 03, 2025, 08:03:39 AMQuote from: tenbones on April 02, 2025, 03:08:14 PMMost of the games that are fantasy that people are citing as examples are not really "successful" in the commercial sense. WoD doesn't count, because you start as a human and one of the goals is dealing with your condition from the context of being human.
That's true of Vampire and Wraith, but not of Werewolf and Changeling (plus Promethean and possibly some of the others).
Just to review cases:
- Werewolf and Changeling are the most significant of the World of Darkness line. The PCs live disguised as humans, but were born as other beings and have their own societies hidden in the human world.
When is the last time you actually read those games (note the garbage that is their 5e doesn't count)?
Any Homid werewolf grew up thinking they were human until their first change as a teenager. Standard werewolf practice was to knock up as many women as possible as a deadbeat dad then approach any that actually do change (not all do).
Similarly, the whole point in Changeling is that your fae self is hidden away in a mortal seeming that grew up as a regular person until you underwent a change.
And let's not forget Mages who remain human, just Awaken to to the truth of magick existing.
It's basically the stock trope of all the WoD lines; "you were a normal person until... [insert splat creation event here]."
Even the last version of Mummy abandoned its "you're a millennias-old remnant of a long dead culture" for "you were a normal person until you died and a bit of an old Egyptian soul got grafted onto you as part of your resurrection." Which is lame and I refused to use, but the fact WW went there just proves my point.
Quote from: Chris24601 on April 03, 2025, 05:47:01 PMWhen is the last time you actually read those games (note the garbage that is their 5e doesn't count)?
Any Homid werewolf grew up thinking they were human until their first change as a teenager. Standard werewolf practice was to knock up as many women as possible as a deadbeat dad then approach any that actually do change (not all do).
Similarly, the whole point in Changeling is that your fae self is hidden away in a mortal seeming that grew up as a regular person until you underwent a change.
And let's not forget Mages who remain human, just Awaken to to the truth of magick existing.
It's basically the stock trope of all the WoD lines; "you were a normal person until... [insert splat creation event here]."
Even the last version of Mummy abandoned its "you're a millennias-old remnant of a long dead culture" for "you were a normal person until you died and a bit of an old Egyptian soul got grafted onto you as part of your resurrection." Which is lame and I refused to use, but the fact WW went there just proves my point.
Mage was the only one of those lines that ever appealed to me, as someone who only plays humans.
The one Werewolf game I played, my character was the token Kinfolk. The one Vampire game I played a few sessions of, I played a Ghoul. I don't do monsters or non-humans.
They may be "human enough" for some, but not for me. Though I did once play a half-demon character in a Dresden Files game (physically human, though).
But the point is, the difference in WoD, that you're interacting directly with whatever it means to be "human" in light of your new condition. I mean I don't think that's unreasonable position ignore for the sake of argument.
I've run tons and tons of WoD with several groups. I can't recall anyone, even in my Sabbat games, where the idea of *being* human wasn't informing the game on nearly every level. There are a few exceptions, but they were individual characters doing their thing (the occasional garou lupus or Sabbat that was *really* into the Sabbat doctrines).
Sure you could run a Werewolf game where everyone is a lupus, going around sniffing each other's asses and *only* fighting Wyrm/Weaver monsters in the Umbral realms... and that could be fun, it's generally an outlier of typical games that WoD in general were sold on.
TMNT - fair example. But they're living and playing in/against a Human world. i.e. the game is about playing in/out of the human context.
But pull out RPG's that are strictly non-human... and that list gets *really* niche very quickly. As to being "successful" - there are three categories of success (hip-shot here): 1) Player success - you had fun playing in game where your investment is largely you showing up and playing and to your surprise you liked it. 2) GM success - you are a big fan of the setting, you bought all the books, you know you're going to fight uphill to get your players to play it, but fuck it. You LOVE it! you're all in. Then there's 3) Game Designer Success - did enough of #1 and #2 buy enough of your wacky game that you didn't lose your shirt, or are living in and igloo made out of the unsold copies you've glued together.
Quote from: Corolinth on April 02, 2025, 04:16:10 PMTalislanta is a red herring. The game bills itself as more strange, unique, and alien than it actually is. This imposes an artificial barrier to entry which limits its success.
I don't think it's really a red herring. The more I think about it, the more I think it's *exactly* the perfect example in the purest sense of what the thread is asking - if only as a control group.
It literally has no humans in it. Despite it being, as we both agree, largely *way* over-inflated. Yet... if you care to rifle the many threads on Talislanta, in this forum even, I'm willing to bet *most* people ignore those threads (let's stipulate that, shall we?) but the next most common thing said "Oh yeah. Talislanta. I always meant to look into that..." followed by that derisive "Oh that 'No Elves' game from Dragon (the one full of elves).' Having said that, there is no *real* reason for people not to play it other than the appearance of the playable races. It's definitely not the content. The art is pretty badass. The system is better than 95% of the modern systems out here today. I might go as high 98%.
Even when pimped during my edition, there seemed to be a lot of good feedback here and elsewhere. We did some promotion, the death of our publisher didn't help with the production, but I hate to say it, it *probably* got some people to just buy the damn game out of respect. (Cynical, sure, but probably true). But no one actually plays it writ-large except a handful or weirdo obsessives (like me).
So I think it's not a red herring per se. It's merely a good example looking for something counterfactual where the same conditions are 99% true.
I don't know of many settings that fit this bill... and there is probably a good reason for it. In Savage Worlds they have that setting Low Life - where everyone is a fungus/mold/germ that evolved after the world got wiped out. It makes Talislanta look like Pride and Prejudice the RPG by comparison.
Quote from: tenbones on April 03, 2025, 08:43:30 PMQuote from: Corolinth on April 02, 2025, 04:16:10 PMTalislanta is a red herring. The game bills itself as more strange, unique, and alien than it actually is. This imposes an artificial barrier to entry which limits its success.
I don't think it's really a red herring. The more I think about it, the more I think it's *exactly* the perfect example in the purest sense of what the thread is asking - if only as a control group.
I am speaking as a random schmuck on the internet who picked up a Talislanta book last year. My experience with Talislanta is directly relevant to the argument you're trying to make. I'm the guinea pig, the experiment to test out your idea. When I pick up this new book and flip through it, here's my immediate takeaway:
Aamanian - human
Ariane - drow elf
Arimite - human, with a new skin color that humans don't have on Earth
Callidian - human (maybe elf, but I'm saying human)
Cymrilian - elf, though swordmage looks human
Danuvian - human
Dhuna - human
Dracartan - black man in greenface
Farad - human
I'm looking at this book and I'm seeing a lot of humans. I'm pretty sure most other newcomers are also getting similar impressions. Therefore, if Talislanta is unpopular, it's for some other reason, because there are plenty of human subraces we can play if we just want to be a human.
You say they're not human, and that's fine. I'm not going to argue with you about what those races actually are. I'm just telling you what the newcomer sees when they open the book.
Your assessment is very generous. Trust me, I'm more on your side than the rest of the gaming world.
LOL I wish the history of Talislanta reflected *your* opinion. I'll do you one better. I have zero evidence of this, but I suspect *most* people that say "Talislanta is weird" have never actually bothered to crack a book/read a PDF, so they can't even formulate the opinion you have. Which as someone new to Talislanta, I totally get why you see it that way.
What makes it even more apparent is people still feel this way and it costs them *nothing*. All the content of Talislanta is 100% free on the Talislanta website (except the latest edition - which is really just a setting-refluff, nothing systemwise is really different.
I'm just saying, I *agree* with you. I think my position as a longtime Talislanta fan/creator/GM it remains a hard thing to ignore in regards to the thread question.
Quote from: tenbones on April 04, 2025, 11:04:36 AMYour assessment is very generous. Trust me, I'm more on your side than the rest of the gaming world.
LOL I wish the history of Talislanta reflected *your* opinion. I'll do you one better. I have zero evidence of this, but I suspect *most* people that say "Talislanta is weird" have never actually bothered to crack a book/read a PDF, so they can't even formulate the opinion you have. Which as someone new to Talislanta, I totally get why you see it that way.
What makes it even more apparent is people still feel this way and it costs them *nothing*. All the content of Talislanta is 100% free on the Talislanta website (except the latest edition - which is really just a setting-refluff, nothing systemwise is really different.
I'm just saying, I *agree* with you. I think my position as a longtime Talislanta fan/creator/GM it remains a hard thing to ignore in regards to the thread question.
A bit off-topic, but do you have a favorite edition?
Quote from: Trond on April 03, 2025, 02:44:15 PMI can also totally imagine someone playing Tolkien-based games where everyone is an elf (or hobbit), although humans would be around. It's not even that far off from his writings.
Like if you re-created a situation like in The Hobbit? There no pure humans through most of the story, there are mentions in the book early on 'hills with castles built by evil men' and mentins of Lake-town in Bilbo's house, yet Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves are not human, Elrond is half-human, true, Beorn is basically a werebear, so I am not sure how he counts, no purely human beings are encountered in the flesh until Lake-town and the story is pretty solid, having been popular for almost 90 years now.
The question of, "What is a human?" is relevant to this thread.
Does the race have to say "Human" for it to count?
Is it sufficient for the artwork to look like a human, and the words the game uses for the name of the race can be reasonably interpreted to mean the same thing as "European" or "African" on Earth?
Does the book have to explicitly state "Human, European" and "Human, African" for those two races to count as humans?
Quote from: bat on April 04, 2025, 12:13:03 PMQuote from: Trond on April 03, 2025, 02:44:15 PMI can also totally imagine someone playing Tolkien-based games where everyone is an elf (or hobbit), although humans would be around. It's not even that far off from his writings.
Like if you re-created a situation like in The Hobbit? There no pure humans through most of the story, there are mentions in the book early on 'hills with castles built by evil men' and mentins of Lake-town in Bilbo's house, yet Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves are not human, Elrond is half-human, true, Beorn is basically a werebear, so I am not sure how he counts, no purely human beings are encountered in the flesh until Lake-town and the story is pretty solid, having been popular for almost 90 years now.
Tolkien said that all of his races were meant to represent specific aspects of humanity, so in that sense they should all count as human
Where exactly did he say this? I looked around and there is a huge variety of human races in the Lord of the Rings alone, (from the Dunedain to the Wild Men to the Wood Woses and many in between} which was written years after The Hobbit, which was a story written for his own children and presumably, not gone into such depth as later works even though a skeleton of The Silmarillion pre-dates The Hobbit, it was very rough. One thing Tolkien undoubtedly said was that he put no allegories into his writing.
Quote from: bat on April 04, 2025, 11:21:36 PMWhere exactly did he say this? I looked around and there is a huge variety of human races in the Lord of the Rings alone, (from the Dunedain to the Wild Men to the Wood Woses and many in between} which was written years after The Hobbit, which was a story written for his own children and presumably, not gone into such depth as later works even though a skeleton of The Silmarillion pre-dates The Hobbit, it was very rough. One thing Tolkien undoubtedly said was that he put no allegories into his writing.
It was an interview. He said that hobbits are the quiet, stay at home nature of men, dwarves are the greedy part, elves are something else, and humanity in LotR is too complicated to explain right now. A quick google search didn't turn it up, but whatever, I read it a long time ago
Fair enough, not EVERYTHING is online.
If there aren't any humans in the setting, the setting will have a race that are all basically human.
Every other race is either a stereotype, or also human. Someone really creative might make a race that is truly and sincerely ALIEN; but then they would be unplayable, unless in actual play they get turned into a human stereotype, or just human.
It seems like there's a caveman rpg where you're literally not allowed to use words. I forget the name.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 05, 2025, 01:29:45 AMQuote from: bat on April 04, 2025, 11:21:36 PMWhere exactly did he say this? I looked around and there is a huge variety of human races in the Lord of the Rings alone, (from the Dunedain to the Wild Men to the Wood Woses and many in between} which was written years after The Hobbit, which was a story written for his own children and presumably, not gone into such depth as later works even though a skeleton of The Silmarillion pre-dates The Hobbit, it was very rough. One thing Tolkien undoubtedly said was that he put no allegories into his writing.
It was an interview. He said that hobbits are the quiet, stay at home nature of men, dwarves are the greedy part, elves are something else, and humanity in LotR is too complicated to explain right now. A quick google search didn't turn it up, but whatever, I read it a long time ago
What I get from it is that elves are more what humans are not. Apart from languages and myth, Tolkien pondered a lot about death. One of the most interesting things about elves is that they are basically immortal.
Quote from: RPGPundit on April 05, 2025, 04:23:04 PMIf there aren't any humans in the setting, the setting will have a race that are all basically human.
Every other race is either a stereotype, or also human. Someone really creative might make a race that is truly and sincerely ALIEN; but then they would be unplayable, unless in actual play they get turned into a human stereotype, or just human.
A lot of people share your opinion and it may be right, but it's one I like to challenge. The best counterexample I've found is CJ Cherryh's Compact Space books. She has a whole set of wonderfully fleshed out and believable alien races, and I think I could play most of them true to their nature, particularly the hani, mahendo'sat, and kif.
Quote from: RPGPundit on April 05, 2025, 04:23:04 PMIf there aren't any humans in the setting, the setting will have a race that are all basically human.
Every other race is either a stereotype, or also human. Someone really creative might make a race that is truly and sincerely ALIEN; but then they would be unplayable, unless in actual play they get turned into a human stereotype, or just human.
I agree with this. It's the reason I often don't bother with non-humans in my own settings, but it's also the reason I don't mind settings where non-humans predominate. In the end it's really all the same.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 05, 2025, 06:47:19 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on April 05, 2025, 04:23:04 PMIf there aren't any humans in the setting, the setting will have a race that are all basically human.
Every other race is either a stereotype, or also human. Someone really creative might make a race that is truly and sincerely ALIEN; but then they would be unplayable, unless in actual play they get turned into a human stereotype, or just human.
A lot of people share your opinion and it may be right, but it's one I like to challenge. The best counterexample I've found is CJ Cherryh's Compact Space books. She has a whole set of wonderfully fleshed out and believable alien races, and I think I could play most of them true to their nature, particularly the hani, mahendo'sat, and kif.
I mentioned her books upthread. It's ironic that you pick the three races that are the most anthropomorphic in her series. They are basically furry humans. If you had said that you could play the t'ca, chi, or knnn, then you'd be talking about playing really alien species. I don't think you proved what you thought you proved with that example.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 05, 2025, 08:43:07 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 05, 2025, 06:47:19 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on April 05, 2025, 04:23:04 PMIf there aren't any humans in the setting, the setting will have a race that are all basically human.
Every other race is either a stereotype, or also human. Someone really creative might make a race that is truly and sincerely ALIEN; but then they would be unplayable, unless in actual play they get turned into a human stereotype, or just human.
A lot of people share your opinion and it may be right, but it's one I like to challenge. The best counterexample I've found is CJ Cherryh's Compact Space books. She has a whole set of wonderfully fleshed out and believable alien races, and I think I could play most of them true to their nature, particularly the hani, mahendo'sat, and kif.
I mentioned her books upthread. It's ironic that you pick the three races that are the most anthropomorphic in her series. They are basically furry humans. If you had said that you could play the t'ca, chi, or knnn, then you'd be talking about playing really alien species. I don't think you proved what you thought you proved with that example.
I wouldn't call any of those three furries. They all have well developed motivations, psychology, and societies that are nothing that humans would do. That's more important than their being mammals with mostly anthropoidal forms.
I didn't remember enough about the bird people to play them. And of course I couldn't play any of the methane breathers - the books I read don't include anything about the motivations, psychology, and society. The hani don't understand them at all so they just describe them as crazy and dangerous.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 05, 2025, 09:44:56 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on April 05, 2025, 08:43:07 PMQuote from: Mishihari on April 05, 2025, 06:47:19 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on April 05, 2025, 04:23:04 PMIf there aren't any humans in the setting, the setting will have a race that are all basically human.
Every other race is either a stereotype, or also human. Someone really creative might make a race that is truly and sincerely ALIEN; but then they would be unplayable, unless in actual play they get turned into a human stereotype, or just human.
A lot of people share your opinion and it may be right, but it's one I like to challenge. The best counterexample I've found is CJ Cherryh's Compact Space books. She has a whole set of wonderfully fleshed out and believable alien races, and I think I could play most of them true to their nature, particularly the hani, mahendo'sat, and kif.
I mentioned her books upthread. It's ironic that you pick the three races that are the most anthropomorphic in her series. They are basically furry humans. If you had said that you could play the t'ca, chi, or knnn, then you'd be talking about playing really alien species. I don't think you proved what you thought you proved with that example.
I wouldn't call any of those three furries. They all have well developed motivations, psychology, and societies that are nothing that humans would do. That's more important than their being mammals with mostly anthropoidal forms.
I didn't remember enough about the bird people to play them. And of course I couldn't play any of the methane breathers - the books I read don't include anything about the motivations, psychology, and society. The hani don't understand them at all so they just describe them as crazy and dangerous.
I said furry humans, not furries. I like the books; I'm not going to insult them.
On the gripping hand, though, I need some examples of these "well developed motivations, psychology, and societies that are nothing that humans would do." Because they seem perfectly within human range and understanding to me...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 06, 2025, 08:48:17 AMI said furry humans, not furries. I like the books; I'm not going to insult them.
You're splitting hares with that distinction.
:)
What non-human campaign setting has ever been truly successful? I can't think of one.
Quote from: Trond on April 04, 2025, 11:30:37 AMA bit off-topic, but do you have a favorite edition?
All of the editions are 98% totally compatible. The primary differences are the magic-systems. Ironically, all the of the magic-systems could co-exist simultaneously in your game without any real effort.
All that said without elaboration (and I could give TONS of pro's/cons's for each edition) I land on 2e probably being the best one. They're *all* great. And like I said, no edition is very different than the others.
My edition is a prequel - and it's not free, but you can buy it with the new edition on the Talislanta website with Epic games.
Quote from: RPGPundit on April 05, 2025, 04:23:04 PMIf there aren't any humans in the setting, the setting will have a race that are all basically human.
Every other race is either a stereotype, or also human. Someone really creative might make a race that is truly and sincerely ALIEN; but then they would be unplayable, unless in actual play they get turned into a human stereotype, or just human.
Yup!