Humans in RPG's - a paradox

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
An interesting question.

Certainly a game like Bunnies and Burrows works. It may be a tiny niche that's interested in it, but I don't think that type of game gets labeled as unapproachable. Another is Albedo, but that (and Other Suns) play to the "furry" crowd which is enough of a market to gain traction. There's also Chaosium's Elfquest.

In plenty of games it's reasonable for the play group to decide to run an all non-human game, or it can even end up that way (I've had plenty of D&D games with no human PCs or maybe just one).

One of the things that always bugs me a bit about Talislanta is all the "human but not human" races. It does make Talislanta less approachable.

But my advice to anyone putting out a game is to focus on your vision, and worry less about what the market wants. Unless you spend big bugs on market research you'll probably get it wrong, and in the meantime, those who would have stampeded to your vision get turned off when they see the vision got muddled. If your setting doesn't have humans, or they wouldn't make appropriate PCs for the game play you envision, leave them out, or put them in an appendix.

Frank
 
As a side note, one of the biggest computer RPG franchises (Legend of Zelda) has no humans...
 
I pretty much only play humans, so I like humans in the game. :smile: I did play a dwarf for one session 8 years ago; did not go well.
 
I wish! It is on my list of want to play but haven't got around to yet. I have played D&D parties with no humans, I've always been a fan of the monster races.
Lowlife is one of those awesome games that I will probably never get to play.
 
That is the exact problem of Lowlife (and I'm tentatively extending this to other RPG's without Humans) - is the people that have no problem playing such games... never get a chance to play them. Largely because "too many" people don't like games without humans (even if they don't play them).

It's nice to have this discussion. It's clarifying some things for me that I'd considered but wasn't sure about.
 
I assume there is a thematic reason for not having humans? If so, I would be up for a game with no humans. It doesn’t concern me in a game of make-believe that my made-up character isn’t human. I want content and theme in the games that I play.

Also, what is your publishing goals for the game? Personal gratification, vanity press type thing, or full-on commercial endeavor where you intend to make loads of money?

Personally, I would make the art as I envisioned and assume the group that wants the game will find me.
Pursue your vision and sate the creative fire in your belly, only you can feed that.
 
I assume there is a thematic reason for not having humans? If so, I would be up for a game with no humans. It doesn’t concern me in a game of make-believe that my made-up character isn’t human. I want content and theme in the games that I play.

Well I have good reasons pro/con - it's a sci-fi setting with some off-center conceits. Humans don't have to be there - but having them there opens up some other possibilities for "other things" down the road, that the more I think of it, makes a lot of sense.

Also, what is your publishing goals for the game? Personal gratification, vanity press type thing, or full-on commercial endeavor where you intend to make loads of money?

Currently working on the setting bible. My goals are for full on commercial publishing (print/pod/pdf - plus some extras I can bring to the table that others haven't/don't). I have two fallback plans to stay in the pocket of these goals. There is already some interest in another medium about the setting-bible that I can't really talk about, (it's nothing definite - just interest), that one of the guys I'm working with is heading up.

Personally, I would make the art as I envisioned and assume the group that wants the game will find me.
Pursue your vision and sate the creative fire in your belly, only you can feed that.

Absolutely. Your own work has been a big inspiration to me specifically in that regard. Hellas, Atlantis, Godsend? LOVE them all! The Human question came up because my wife, (she's a professional editor) posed the question to me because she sniffed a "weakness" in my gameplan. Granted she's coming at this purely from a fiction-narrative standpoint - it deserved to be thought through.

My vision isn't dependent on whether human's are present or not, to be honest. What I want is for players to actually play in the sandbox of the setting and not be turned off by superficial things. So the decision to have humans, in a sci-fi(ish) setting immediately has pros/cons with the very conceit of their presence (time period, disposition outside of the starting setting world, history etc.)

And I've already considered a lot of pros for having humans present - including the fact that some of the "humans" are sub-races due to genetic manipulation from the main line. So this discussion has been *very* valuable to me.
 
There is already some interest in another medium about the setting-bible that I can't really talk about
If your other option is TV or film then they will thank you for having humans IMO. Mass-media makes relatability even more important and, additionally, requires the least in terms of SFX...
 
As a side note, one of the biggest computer RPG franchises (Legend of Zelda) has no humans...
Well... technically. But Hylians are so... average... that they may as well be humans; they're the baseline that the other races get to differ from.
 
Well... technically. But Hylians are so... average... that they may as well be humans; they're the baseline that the other races get to differ from.
They act almost exactly like humans as well, so Hylians just have different surface traits, but are pretty much humans.
 
But if you produced a Hylian RPG and didn't call it Zelda... would people buy it and play it? I'm betting you'd have better results with making them humans set in a Zeldaesque world.
 
But if you produced a Hylian RPG and didn't call it Zelda... would people buy it and play it? I'm betting you'd have better results with making them humans set in a Zeldaesque world.
Well, I will admit to being an outlier but I bought these to run a Hyrule campaign using GURPS in the future and Link and Zelda would be very unlikely to feature beyond as legends

AD8F3ECB-D250-44A8-AE74-B14EC675FE80.jpeg

As you can see from the Glorantha Guide by comparison, there is plenty of material to work with.
 
That is the exact problem of Lowlife (and I'm tentatively extending this to other RPG's without Humans) - is the people that have no problem playing such games... never get a chance to play them. Largely because "too many" people don't like games without humans (even if they don't play them).
Well...it's not just that.
In a way, everyone can relate to humans. I maintain that everyone can relate to anything...but in many cases, we don't care enough to bother doing so.
Like, I'd gladly play some games with no humans...I've run Usagi Yojimbo, as an example. Have considered running Ninja Turtles, too, but haven't got to it...so far. (And you could argue that Eclipse Phase also counts...especially if there's no Jovians around:smile:).
Low Life, though? I'm not interested in bugs as PCs, sorry:wink:. At least not past a one-shot - but then I'd probably consider* a one-shot of almost anything. BBSW** included, probably...well, I'd have to think about that one, since I'm not a real fan of the genre:tongue:!
But it would still be easier to get me to join it than to join this than a Low Life one-shot.

To adapt a saying from a smarter guy than me, "All humans-contaning RPGs have a common denominator: you can play a human. All the games with special snowflakes depend on the game containing at least one snowflake that appeals to you, specifically. And some settings just miss that mark.

*Especially if I'm not the one who's running it...:grin:
**Make yourself a favour and DO NOT google that abbreviation on a work computer:devil:!

It's nice to have this discussion. It's clarifying some things for me that I'd considered but wasn't sure about.
Glad to help!
 
I don't know whether the mutants of the first book of Mutant Year Zero count as entirely human, you still play them as largely human in their behaviour and motivations. The other books of MYZ - Genlab Alpha and Mechatron are played with animal and robot PCs exclusively and the differences are significantly not-human both mechanically in the way the PCs are created and their motivations and abilities. The most recent MYZ - Elysium all the PCs are human. Looking at the Kickstarter numbers I would guess playing the sentient animals of Genlab Alpha has been less popular than Mechatron, and the Mechatron robots are less popular than the core MYZ mutants and the MYZ Elysium Judicators (Judges, you're playing Mega City One Judges) who are all human.
 
I don't know whether the mutants of the first book of Mutant Year Zero count as entirely human, you still play them as largely human in their behaviour and motivations. The other books of MYZ - Genlab Alpha and Mechatron are played with animal and robot PCs exclusively and the differences are significantly not-human both mechanically in the way the PCs are created and their motivations and abilities. The most recent MYZ - Elysium all the PCs are human. Looking at the Kickstarter numbers I would guess playing the sentient animals of Genlab Alpha has been less popular than Mechatron, and the Mechatron robots are less popular than the core MYZ mutants and the MYZ Elysium Judicators (Judges, you're playing Mega City One Judges) who are all human.

That may be swayed by the fact though that MYZ is a pretty old game in Sweden even if this is a new edition. Essentially it is similar to comparing a core book to a supplement. Supplements are unlikely to outsell a core book.
 
That may be swayed by the fact though that MYZ is a pretty old game in Sweden even if this is a new edition. Essentially it is similar to comparing a core book to a supplement. Supplements are unlikely to outsell a core book.

Maybe, but each book is also a standalone RPG with a self-contained campaign, you don't need the first MYZ book to play any of the others. You would have to ask Fria Ligan, it's just my guess that human PCs of some kind are going to be more popular.
 
Maybe, but each book is also a standalone RPG with a self-contained campaign, you don't need the first MYZ book to play any of the others. You would have to ask Fria Ligan, it's just my guess that human PCs of some kind are going to be more popular.

Sure it could be that but I think there are too many other possible reasons it could be that to decide the human/mutant is the main reason is possibly reaching. MYZ is seen as the core game because of its long history among the fans. Its similar to how a FR book is going to sell more than almost any other setting book in D&D.
 
Sure it could be that but I think there are too many other possible reasons it could be that to decide the human/mutant is the main reason is possibly reaching. MYZ is seen as the core game because of its long history among the fans. Its similar to how a FR book is going to sell more than almost any other setting book in D&D.

Yes - I don't really know, my sense is that overall the skew is towards supporting human-tending PCs more. There's another way of looking at it which might be of relevance to Tenbones - Genlab Alpha and Mechatron both did really well and neither has human PCs, nor are they stand-in humans, each takes quite a different take with mechanics suited to each type - the sentient animals are divided into different tribes, have different roles and abilities suited to the setting and their nature, the robots have Model types, chassis parts, programs, modules, very different to the way mutants and animals are created.
 
Significantly, a lot depends on the setting, genre, and tone of the game. I like humans as an option in some games. In other games, I prefer towards enjoying non-human life. Though, even humans can be "alien," in the right context.

Example, a friend of mine wanted to run a weird fantasy game inspired very loosely by a weird fantasy book. He had us choose Earth time periods from a hat. Mine was "very far future." So I chose 1 million AD/CE. My human didn't understand a LOT of the others well. It was genderfluid, sexuality fluid, skin color fluid, shapeshifting along with humanoid shapes of roughly similar size. An artist, who literally had never worked, didn't understand that concept. Didn't fight--it barely understood that. It tried to comfort the other humans by finding pleasing forms to calm them, or offer sex (because for it sex was something you shared out of love and kindness for others--because when it was from others were few, literally the population of humanity was maybe in the tens of thousands, across the solar system.)

Note, it was not played for laughs. My characters (through my acting) flirted with everyone it met, gently. There was no pushiness to it. Nor demand, just gentle honest aim for kindness.

One of my friends told his brother about the game and was surprised one of our players chose an African-American baseball player (before Jackie Robinson so it was likely an all African American team.) The brother, in this case, expected it to be my character (which honestly would have been cool too, but I didn't get that option.)

He was very surprised at who was playing it. Now, he asked what I had played if that person had tried such a challenge--and when he heard of me, in character, flirting with everyone who showed sapience. He said, "I'd have paid money to have seen that." I picked the role because it was a challenge, to me.

It was truly alien to anything I'd normally pick. It was also fun, interesting--and sadly we played one session (that everyone enjoyed, but the GM didn't honestly know where to go with the plot after that session. I think depression is an issue for him too.)

So, yeah, "alien", strange, nonhuman, all can be cool if they give me an option to try something challenging to the actor-stance I take when I play a game.

I want A) Unique/different fantasy races these days. I loved the traditional, but I've far too many games with that. B) I've played Talislanta, Justifiers (uplifts) and I'm thinking of running (but would kill to play) the other races in a Jorune game.

C) The races have to be interesting though. I have a harder time with Traveller because I'm steeped in the Sci-Fi they "borrowed" those races from in my head. So I see through the illusion of alien-ness to well.

So bring em on, make 'em unique, but give someone an option (perhaps in an Appendix) to play something more nominal.
 
Hey, know what would be cool? A game that highlights the fundamental differences between races and how they must deal with it to coexist. How do you interact with a person who can't empathize because such a concept doesn't exist on a biological or social level for him? (game's social mechanics are shutdown for them)
 
Last edited:
I've run Dragonraid. It had some neat elements. I've heard people call it propaganda--but, it explicitly sold itself to people (teens) who were already Christians, to help learn some things. (I've issues with it, I am a believer, but I still would have liked a few tweaks.) Though dying in a game in one of the games "modules" had a post-death visit to Heaven which was kinda cool. I'd spoil it but if someone actually wants to play it I'll avoid it. (Though I am sure Dumarest is being sarcastic.)

My primary issue is that killing the corrupt (post-rapture from their world) monsters lacks a self-awareness I as a Christian need (and feel should be taught) that talking to people kindly, letting them learn by your example, is a better way to live "Christian" than these sin-embodiments corrupted and being killed. It would have been nice if everything but dragons (demons) could be saved and taken to the Christian "homestead."

Note: As a Christian, I am not gonna preach at you except by unintentional accident. I feel you should own your own path. I also believe in a benevolent infinite being that is probably much kinder/more loving to us than we can imagine. So I suspect a good person who does right--will be judged, the same as I and that's with mercy and love. (I'm heretical a bit in I think God welcomes all good people who try and be "helpers" to others per Mr. Rogers, and that the only reason so-called sinners don't reach him is due to holding themselves away from that figure.) It's hard to be loved if you hold on to anger/self-hate. (It's notable that Christ's own words that come close to even mentioning hell--is that "the fire" is where alleged believers who claim the Christian name but do not follow his path are sent.--in the Parable of the Goats and Sheep. At least that I recall ATM)

Anyway, sorry for the digression.
 
Awesome. It had some of the absolute best art from its original publication date of RPG's
 
Hey, know what would be cool? A game that highlights the fundamental differences between races and how they must deal with it to coexist. How do you interact with a person who can't empathize because such a concept doesn't exist on a biological or social level for him? (game's social mechanics are shutdown for them)

That's something that's an actual "thing" that's part of my project. Some of the playable races are pretty different. Not necessarily "Arrival" different, but there some distinct biological and therefore sociological functions that are simply beyond the experience of the others. That said, I'm not going to let it get in the way of gameplay. It's a needle I intend to thread in a meaningful fashion.
 
Have any of you read Starcluster 3 and the Bailey-Wolfe indexing system for the psychology of species? It's a really solid SF approach for examining "alien-ness" and how it plays in a game.
 
Silverlion Silverlion - unless they already own SC3, it's unavailable since SC4 came out, so I copied it and pasted it here:

The Bailey-Wolfe Psychological Index

This index is used to measure a species on seven axes. The further from human the species' rating is, the more difficult it would be to communicate with. Each axis is rated from -9 to +9.

Neotropism: This is the tendency of the species to accept new and unusual ideas, tropes, and people. It is rated from -9 (tradition-bound and xenophobic) to +9 ("Oooh! Shiny!")

Sociability: This is the tendency of the species to form and maintain bonds with its own kind. It is rated from -9 (surly and individualist) to +9 (sheep like)

Instinct: This is the tendency of the species to rely on instinct as opposed to learning. It is rated from -9 (pure learning) to +9 (pure instinct)

Logic: This is the tendency of the species to use logic as a tool. It is rated from -9 (extremely intuitive) to +9 (extremely analytical)

Foresight: This is the tendency of the species to plan ahead. It is rated from -9 (very short term) to +9 (very long term)

Pattern Recognition: This is the tendency of the species to act based on seeing a known pattern as opposed to thinking everything through. It is rated from -9 (must follow chain of thought) to +9 (acts instantly on perceiving any pattern)

Individuals Individuals vary. Personality varies among individuals and affects individual ratings.

Human Rating

Humans are rated as follows on the Index:
Neotropism 4, Sociability 7, Instinct -4, Logic 0, Foresight -6. Pattern Recognition 6

The Index and Letter Code

You can combine the Bailey-Wolf Index numbers with the Letter codes to describe a species in shorthand. To use this, take the Letter Codes in order, then the numbers of the index:

OM.HU.SH.AH.LF.SS.4.7.-4.0.-6.6 is the shorthand for Humans
 
People want to fantasize themselves as not-vanilla. Which requires the presence of vanilla or there's no favorable contrast to be had.
Too true. I've known a number of people over the years who need humans to be in the game or they wont play. Granted they never play a human, just need them there for reasons?
 
Hmm... This in an interesting topic.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't play a game where humans didn't exist. If the world was interesting and I could still relate in some way to the non-human characters it would probably peak my interest. It really depends on if you can achieve that 'Goldilocks zone' and being just right and therefore playable. There's also a possibility that the non-humans would be played like humans as that's what we are. :smile:

On the personal preference side of things I tend to prefer human centric games. Probably because I prefer low fantasy gritty games for the most part. I tend to veer away from over the top character types. Some of the 5e character types are not really my bag (tieflings, etc).

Again, as long as you can make a game somewhat relatable it doesn't necessarily have to be flung to the phantom zone. :smile:
 
That's the thing. I know a *LOT* of gamers that say without real consideration that "Sure! I'd play a game without humans."

But then with a little scrutiny, you find that very few *actually* play those games, for very real reasons. It might be purely subjective, and while as individuals they might be perfectly fine doing it, their group might not be as enthused vs. playing something more familiar. Or maybe the GM wants to run such a game, but the players balk.

The post up-thread talking about the marketing research WotC did *really* underscores this with the big caveat that if the setting already has buy-in, based on humans, the chances of doing something non-human specific is more palatable.

That said - my reasoning to include humans are *not* just based on commercial interests (though it's an element), I'd already considered it, but this conversation and a few others made me realize that 1) it's just a good idea if it can be executed beyond "oh well, here's your humans*" 2) it leads to a lot of other potential interesting things downstream.

* my "humans" will be a different take that tie deeper into the background beyond "Just being human".
 
People want to fantasize themselves as not-vanilla. Which requires the presence of vanilla or there's no favorable contrast to be had.

Right! So my goal is to subvert, gently, what people assume about hugemanatee (in a sci-fi setting)
 
Bit late to the party but I'll throw out an illustrating scenario:

A friend of mine was detailing out your trope-standard fantasy setting with the idea that such non-human races have well-found biological reasons for both their characteristics and cultural norms. So he (with my assistance) reasoned out a variety of physiological differences that would lead to, for example, observed elf characteristics.

The result was interesting, but even more so the pushback from one or another player was intriguing. They wanted their fantasy races to be "humans with funny foreheads" or "completely undetailed stat blocks", but anything in-between was clearly clocked as uncanny valley territory.

Also:
1565111239240.png

I think that's mandatory, no?

--Khanwulf
 
Too true. I've known a number of people over the years who need humans to be in the game or they wont play. Granted they never play a human, just need them there for reasons?
I think what EOTB said has something to do with that: "People want to fantasize themselves as not-vanilla. Which requires the presence of vanilla or there's no favorable contrast to be had."

Special requires Ordinary to exist.
 
I think what EOTB said has something to do with that: "People want to fantasize themselves as not-vanilla. Which requires the presence of vanilla or there's no favorable contrast to be had."

Special requires Ordinary to exist.

I completely agree. I almost always play "human" in most games - for the exact opposite reason. I want to, hopefully, experience the setting's assumptions about non-humans through the eyes of whatever human character I'm playing. It's like the thrill of discovery, rather than me butting heads with the GM on what they think Elves or Dwarves are supposed to be vs. my own PC concept. What I find, sadly, is that most GM's just play non-humans as humans with rubber prosthetics.

This is where all the typical D&D-style fantasy tropes have emerged, quite different from their mythological and literary roots.

Some things that this thread is *really* indicating to me is the importance of hitting the sweet spot between narrative assumptions and mechanical realities. Which brings me to the question of "assumed" social mechanics-as-balance (which I'm going to make another thread for).
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top