An awful lot of groups I've played with that had mixed races, dwarves and elves, it often slips my mind who is playing what race... until it comes to who can see underground, in the dark, whatever...
Even GMs, when calculating some effect, will often end up asking, "What race are you again?"
Maybe I'm wrong for thinking there's more to playing a dwarf than having dwarf stats on your character sheet.

I don't get why people don't get this. Or, at least, make a big deal about it. Some people won't play a game unless they can be an elf (dwarf, minotaur, whatever.) Some GMs won't run a game that includes elves (etc.) When the two meet, they find out they can't play together... so they don't.

Why is that weird? Why should they be forced to play together?

And why ask why things are that way? Each person probably has a specific reason. If you want to know that particular person's reason, ask them. But you'll get nowhere fast if you try to figure out why elf-lovers as a whole like elves, or won't play non-elves. There's no simple answer, other than "people like what they like".

Some people like playing elves and dwarves, some people hate them.

I'm not sure why some people only play certain races, but there again I know someone who likes to play shamans and another who likes to play fighters, no matter the game. I like to play berserkers, or at least short-tempered-flying-into-ragers.

But, it's your game. If your setting only has humans then the players can only play humans. If you know that someone wants to play an elf but are insistent that they can't then there are several outcomes - the player doesn't join the game, the player joins the game and plays an elf-like human or the player joins the game, plays a normal human and doesn't enjoy it. Congratulations, you win. Or not.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;720851Are they willing to work with you at all?

No.

The issue I am having is not with a home crew. It's with random strangers at game conventions and our FLGS game days who are potential players. I ran OD&D on Saturday for 4 players, but two other people drove to the store, came to the table, one asked about Dwarf pregens and another asked about Elf pregens and both left after hearing that our OD&D game was humanocentric.

According to a couple of my regular players, this has happened several times in the past 2 years that I have run this humanocentric campaign.

Maybe these Dwarf/Elf Only Dudes are total freaks. Maybe they would be great fun at the table. My other players would like our sessions to be more than 2-4 players and would like a table of 4-8 instead...but with a good crew of gamers, not just more bodies.

As someone who is an "semi-OSR evangelist", I want more people to play OD&D and have a great time, not be disappointed.

And yet, I want to balance than against my own sense of what is fun for me.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;720851The GM rather liked this idea, and I got to play an undead Tiefling who fit into his campaign.

I run 0e and 4e. My default 4e setting is Astral Sea Islands like a mini-Planescape and there I absolutely embrace crazy high fantasy where there is no "main race", but vast diversity of races and classes.

BTW, my LFR characters are a Dwarf Wizard and an Elf Ranger.

But in 0e, I have really enjoyed a humanocentric focus.

Quote from: Ravenswing;720875Why elves and dwarves?  Because people expect them; you could with as much success, I expect, attempt a D&D game where you told people they couldn't play fighters.[/COLOR]

I think you may be correct.

Quote from: Silverlion;720894I'm a human in everyday life and I like to be something else. I don't necessarily need special abilities/bonuses to play the fantastic, I just like the option to play something different and distinct from my core self.

This makes sense to me.
 

Quote from: Simlasa;720959Maybe I'm wrong for thinking there's more to playing a dwarf than having dwarf stats on your character sheet.

And this is exactly what drew me to doing a Humanocentric campaign.

"Okay, you can play a dwarf/elf. You are the oniy one. I need three sentences that explain what you are doing here."
This is how I handle this stuff. Humans, are the extreme minority in all but one of my three settings.  The third is archipelago, at the edge of the Dreamalnds so there is an easy answer at hand.

Quote from: Spinachcat;720846I would love to hear your thoughts.

When I'm running OD&D, I'm cool with just about any kind of figure that has reasonably interesting strengths and weaknesses.

Over the years I've had a werebear samurai, phraints and other insect species, centaurs (and a wemic lion-centaur), a kobbit, a deodanth, pixies, giants, robots, spacemen, a Kzinti and a Pierson's puppeteer, a Nehwhon ghoul, a hoka, a slan, an alu-demon, a few mutants and caped crusaders, an M113 crew, and I forget what all else.

EDIT: I forgot the vampire. Tough going for that one.

I would like to note in my last few "fantasy" games I've played: A Human warrior (D&D), a Catkind Mage (Pathfinder), an Elf Ranger/Lycanthrope Lord (Pathfinder, custom world), Half-Elf Druid (2E AD&D), an Elf (D&D), Elf Druid (Dungeon World), Human Wizard (2E AD&D), Dwarf Cleric (2E), Halfling Warrior (2E), and a not yet played Ilos (Elf) Gunmage (Iron Kingdoms.)

In that same time I've made an Exalted Lunar (Dog), Exalted Solar, a Henge/Huli jing (Fox-person), an MSH character (Lupinoid), A Mekton Character, two Shadowrun Characters, one Sixth World character, two Numenera characters, a Pulp character, and a H&S/Dresden Files setting character.


My preferences are kind all over the map, but yes lean to elf like.


We're not going to count the some 30+ odd PC's I made for MSH a couple weeks ago because I was simply bored and was trying to stretch my imagination a bit.

Quote from: Gib;721035"Okay, you can play a dwarf/elf. You are the oniy one. I need three sentences that explain what you are doing here."

That's my method of choice too. Work for classes as well if you're careful. Some players really get a kick out of being "THE elf" or "THE wizard". For the latter make sure there are plenty of spell casting (and dispelling) monsters around though.

Quote from: talysman;720987I don't get why people don't get this. Or, at least, make a big deal about it. Some people won't play a game unless they can be an elf (dwarf, minotaur, whatever.) Some GMs won't run a game that includes elves (etc.) When the two meet, they find out they can't play together... so they don't.

Why is that weird? Why should they be forced to play together?

And why ask why things are that way? Each person probably has a specific reason. If you want to know that particular person's reason, ask them. But you'll get nowhere fast if you try to figure out why elf-lovers as a whole like elves, or won't play non-elves. There's no simple answer, other than "people like what they like".

When it comes to "people like what they like" I'd agree with you; there's nothing to get. But that's not the issue here. There's nothing wrong with liking elves, or with preferring to play elvish characters, to be more accurate. But when a gamer becomes so fixated or obsessed with playing elvish characters that they'll "take their ball and go home" whenever the GM doesn't cater to their fixation/obsession, then they've crossed over into extremism. Or maybe just plain stubbornness. Or good old fashioned stupidity; that's never off the table. Take your pick.

When you play a game with variants different from the core. You must expect it is going to attract some and repel others. This is absolutely par for the course.

Humanocentric settings though tend to get the least interest for a few reasons.

One being that they are rather bland unless there is alot of cultural diversity.

Another is that it can devolve into race wars. The Yellow People vs the Black People who are trading with the Red People. Some players have little interest in that. Its rare though from personal experience.

One reason a player mentioned way back was... "If there arent any elves or dwarves then that likely means there arent any orcs or goblins or dragons. And if they are in there then why arent the elves and dwarves?" which is a valid concern if you like the fantastical element. Some human-centric settings are just humans. No monsters. Others find them to be interesting.

Players seem to be more accepting with a "no elves" setting when it is the default, rather than some GMs embargo. Simmilar to how some players baulk at house rules.

That all being said. The first two RPGs I did were humanocentric as it were. The second had no monsters at all and was very much driven by cultural and political conflicts.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;721106When it comes to "people like what they like" I'd agree with you; there's nothing to get. But that's not the issue here. There's nothing wrong with liking elves, or with preferring to play elvish characters, to be more accurate. But when a gamer becomes so fixated or obsessed with playing elvish characters that they'll "take their ball and go home" whenever the GM doesn't cater to their fixation/obsession, then they've crossed over into extremism. Or maybe just plain stubbornness. Or good old fashioned stupidity; that's never off the table. Take your pick.

Could also be a little bit of pragmatizm or politeness.
They might believe they arent going to enjoy the setting for some reason. And bow out so as not to be a possible downer for the session.

I have certainly done that a few times with sessions that just didnt click. Though not for the no-elves bit. Im pretty darn sure the session isnt going to interest me and Id rather sit it out. Usually that happens only after alot of Q&A as to aspects. So point A might bug me. But are there other points that interest me? Yes? Then Im in. No and I'll sit it out.

I would guess because they are so heavily associated with not only fantasy, but real world folklore.

Unless you are doing a completely alien setting, like Tekumel, or some atypical culture (Indian, Mesoamerican or African), it just doesn't make sense not to have elves or dwarves, since they existed (or at least people thought they did) in the real world.

It's like a setting without swords or chainmail.

Quote from: Gib;721035"Okay, you can play a dwarf/elf. You are the oniy one. I need three sentences that explain what you are doing here."
This is how I handle this stuff. Humans, are the extreme minority in all but one of my three settings.  The third is archipelago, at the edge of the Dreamalnds so there is an easy answer at hand.

I'd go for that. Use the mandate of the player as an opportunity to retroactively fit the setting.

"We're playing AS&SH, there are no dwarves in Khromarium."
"But I want to play a dwarf!"
"OK. You are a dwarf from another plane of existence. What world do you come from? How did you get here?"
Discussion of awesome ensues, and cool unique character comes out.

Quote from: JeremyR;721124Unless you are doing a completely alien setting, like Tekumel, or some atypical culture (Indian, Mesoamerican or African), it just doesn't make sense not to have elves or dwarves, since they existed (or at least people thought they did) in the real world.  It's like a setting without swords or chainmail.

Huh?

Well, if you're going that route, you think your settings should have firearms and cannon too, right?  After all, firearms and cannon were both extant in the medieval world.  (Pretty contemporaneous with chainmail, for that matter.)  

There are thousands of elements that existed (or folks thought they did) in the real world that never came into ubiquity in gaming, and for one basic reason: they weren't a part of classic D&D.

QuoteCould also be a little bit of pragmatizm or politeness.
They might believe they arent going to enjoy the setting for some reason. And bow out so as not to be a possible downer for the session.

I can see this. Perhaps if someone really likes dwarves and the GM in question decided to kill All The Dwarves in their campaign, maybe they think they're not going to have fun. That's not extremism, IMO, that's bowing out of something that you don't think will be fun for you *personally.* Now might it end up being that way in the end? Sure, you never know unless you try-but I also think that just like a GM isn't forced to use every race, a player isn't forced to play in every game. Sometimes a player's tastes don't fit with a certain campaign, even for seemingly simple reasons. (For me, it's a case by case basis. If I REALLY had an urge to play something, then if someone told me I couldn't when I had that urge, I'd likely find a different game. if I was in one of my 'Whatevs' moods IRT something I'd want to play, then I'd likely not mind the GM banning a race or whatnot.)

I generally am not too bad with cutting races. I 'soft-cut' Dragonborn once from a 4e campaign-the leader of the particular land they were in was a frothing racist against anything dragon or draconian. 'Soft-Cut' is when I say 'Look, it would be very much better off if you didn't play this race. I'm not going to say outright no, but know if you play this you WILL be persecuted, like, all the time, if people find out what you are. If that's a challenge you like, go ahead-but just so you know.'

As for my own tastes-they're all over. For awhile back as a teen I actually loved playing humans in games. Mostly I would play a human-D&D, Shadowrun 2e, etc. I started moving toward non-humans a bit later on. One of my favorite D&D characters is a huge, young centaur(Monstrous Manual: Has the one trait which makes him 'a lot bigger than average.' I just carried this over in editions.) He'd probably run into trouble in a campaign that was all dungeon crawling, but works perfectly fine in others. I like Tieflings a lot(though I prefer 3e's 'Random Appearances' tieflings), I do like elves(though prefer elf races who are less D&D style short elves and I like the more Tolkien style elves).