Why is it so hard for people to give Humans traits like demihumans? Are we so entrenched in old school D&D that we cannot look past the tropes, move away from monoculturalism (e.g. Elves are good with bows and are lithe, Dwarves see in the dark and make shit) and begin to develop beyond stop gap, non-solutions like 'here's some extra XP for being human'?

There are a ton of RPGs who are doing it right with humans, and most are NOT D&D.

Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1022296There are a ton of RPGs who are doing it right with humans, and most are NOT D&D.

For Instance?

Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1022296Why is it so hard for people to give Humans traits like demihumans? Are we so entrenched in old school D&D that we cannot look past the tropes, move away from monoculturalism (e.g. Elves are good with bows and are lithe, Dwarves see in the dark and make shit) and begin to develop beyond stop gap, non-solutions like 'here's some extra XP for being human'?

There are a ton of RPGs who are doing it right with humans, and most are NOT D&D.

Um... humans did have advantages. Unlimited levelling is the main one in pre-3e D&D. Just about every campaign is like 50 to 75 percent humans, a few even higher. With some notable exceptions of course.

Quote from: jhkim;1021391The choice here seems fine, but I'll throw out some potential caveats -

1) There is some tension in trading off between an option being more boring and being more powerful. Certain options (like fighter, cleric, and human in some circles) are chosen less often because they are seen as less interesting - and sometimes there is a push to make them more powerful to balance that. But that can potentially result in, say, a player who takes the unpopular choice being overpowered compared to the rest of the party.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1021628Main issue with humans in older editions from what I recall is they cant see in the dark. This is a major problem for a party that wants to sneak around. no can do if you're waving a torch about in some dark corridor. In 5e, this is still an issue, but the bonus feat outweighs it enough that all I've played are humans. Course that only works if you use feats.

Those two are the main culprits in my group - humans are boring, and they don't have darkvision. I think for my next campaign, which will have more of an emphasis on politics and social roleplaying, I'll make it clear to the players at session 0 that non-humans will suffer a serious disadvantage in many social situations.  

Quote from: Psikerlord;1021628I believe the best solution to anti-human is to remove darkvision from all PC races. Only monsters see in the dark. Gives the game more atmosphere for one, and helps even the playing field for humans vs demihumans. Sure, fluff wise dwarves and elves etc see better in the dark than humans, but they are just as blind in the absence of light.

I think I'll steal that.

If I was using 5e and I wanted to show how non-humans didn't mix well with human society, I would rule all non-humans suffer Disadvantage in social situations with beings of a different race. AKA, elves and dwarves are so alien in culture and outlook that they don't pick up social cues, note bluffing, or sense trust with others as they can with their own race. Meanwhile, humans do okay with everyone.

It would be enough of a penalty to make the point clear we are running a human campaign without nerfing the non-human races. Suddenly the haughty, beautiful elf becomes that difficult to deal with ice queen who is invited, yet dreaded at parties.

As a somewhat heretical alternative:

I've always thought it kind of strange that halflings and gnomes have only a minor or no Strength difference from full-size humans.Rather than penalizing them, maybe change humans to have greater Str and Con. In 5e where they have +1 to all stats, maybe +2 Str and +2 Con. Or some variation balancing with others.

This makes humans stronger by comparison to the other races too, which reinterprets views of other races. Elves are a little more like the willowy elves of some fiction, and dwarves are more short and stout than tank-link. Also, orcs are more like the original view of them as cannon-fodder than super-barbarians.

Stylistically, I think of this as the Conan option - humans are big and tough compared to the frou-frou other races.

Well, in my recent games I just got rid of non-human PCs.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1022972Well, in my recent games I just got rid of non-human PCs.

That's how I did it in one campaign. In another, I told the players that only one in four PCs being rolled up could be non-human. They were free to roll dice, arm wrestle or whatever to decide who would be a demi-human.

As both campaigns progressed, the PCs recruited a number of non-humans and some of these became PCs as other characters died off. But the campaigns were very human-oriented.

While in Dark Albion/Lion & Dragon humans are the only option, in Arrows of Indra what I did was greatly marginalize the presence of non-humans so that playing one was so weird that it could be disadvantageous. You also wouldn't have the benefits of family/clan.

Quote from: estar;1021314This referee has a complaint that not uncommon, all the players in his campaign made non-human characters. Let's face it, non humans are cool kids of fantasy roleplaying. Most races have interesting backstories, memorable characters, and of course the racial abilities. Sometimes all three like with the Drow.

You have some very sensible and well thought-out ideas. I tried a different solution. I said, "No, don't be stupid." And then everyone played a human.

It's kind of mean and nasty but really; I am the DM, I wear the Viking Hat. Like Nancy said, "Just say no, kids."

Mind you, in vanilla D&D worlds there's no real problem with having demi-humans.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1023402You have some very sensible and well thought-out ideas. I tried a different solution. I said, "No, don't be stupid." And then everyone played a human.

It's kind of mean and nasty but really; I am the DM, I wear the Viking Hat. Like Nancy said, "Just say no, kids."

Saying no is always on the table but it got old for me campaign after campaign. While I still play regularly with my two best friends from High School, the rest of the players are a kaleidoscope changing over the decades. It got annoying for me after the Nth time I have to explain "Yeah I am using D&D or X but...". I wanted to use that time to deal with other more fun things about the game.

So over time I decided embrace the expectations and bend them to my purposes. Along with the acceptance if the party is nothing but non-humans (or any other odd character creation combo)  then it will be a different campaign focusing on a different aspect of my setting. Either way I am ready to roll.

Think about it. What would you setting look like if the party was say comprised of all elves? Could you run something that is fun and interesting for yourself and the players? This is of course assumes that you allowed the players to make any legitimate character found in your chosen rules. Campaign that have a specific premise are a different animal.

For example I had a campaign where everybody was the member of the city guard of the City State of the Invincible Overlord. So everybody was human and a fighter to boot. The same for the one all magic user campaign I ran. I ran a campaign where everybody lived in the same small City State neighorhood.

Most of my campaign amount to me offering several choices that I  am prepared to run which the player free to make any character found in the rules. The only stipulation is that the players cooperate during character creation so there were natural reasons for them being together as an adventuring party.