Assuming a generic fantasy setting with a wide variety of races and weirdos walking around...

Because my party's thief is a halfling who can't do shit aside of detecting traps and using diplomacy. But he's truly a funny guy, even if he almost killed my priest with a fumble in our last session.

>Everyone else is doing an elf, goblin, kobold, catgirl, or a robot
>And then there's this one confused human in a bathrobe

The next time the entire rest of the party is playing nonhumans, I'm going to put this concept into play. Thanks, Veeky Forums.

If your species is how you differentiate your character, maybe you should put some fucking effort in, you sack of shit.

Sick of asking people who their character is and getting back "Oh, I'm an elf fighter." That's WHAT you are, which is all things considered only a small part of who.

Because there's something that clicks just right when you're able to hold your own as a human in a world of weirdos. Or when you manage to outweird said weirdos. Either way your presence helps highlight the weirdness, a good point of reference, after all if everyone's weird then it won't feel like they are.

Besides I'm not just playing a human. I'm playing a character. What they are isn't as important as who they are.

Yeah, but if what you were didn't matter at all, all the fantasy games would only have humans around, or at least wouldn't allow you to roll up any nonhuman characters, right?

How come hobbits are hobbits instead of just a culture of lazy fat british people? Why aren't elves just wild forest men, dwarves a bunch of miners and craftsmen, orcs naught but northern rapey vikings?

What is it truly that makes them nonhuman? And if such an approach could be found, wouldn't that be a great thing to play and look into thoroughly?

To be honest, in most of the settings I run, I just say the other humanoid races "evolved" from humans in one way or another. Why do Dwarves and Elves look so much like humans and share so much of the same anatomy? Because they pretty much are humans, they've just been changed by their environment and/or magic/gods/fate/whatever.

Go away.

I've never in my life played a human.

What? Did I accidentally throw in some horribly outdated and overused bait?

I actually was just honestly wondering. I don't hang around Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums in general enough to catch all the trolls and memes and know what I'm really talking about.

I'm sorry, though. I'll go.

...

As far as D&D goes, the extra feat and skill points are the things that make playing a human tempting compared to other races. If they got rid of that mechanic, I'm sure players would be more open to other races.

>What is it truly that makes them nonhuman?

Depends on the setting. In novels it's more often than not an allegory or analogue of something. In games and novels copying works that put thought into their races it usually means they wanted to play something different for the sake of it. Nothing wrong with that though.

>And if such an approach could be found, wouldn't that be a great thing to play and look into thoroughly?

Yeah, of course. It hardly plays out that way sadly. Just my experience and what I've observed. It probably depends on the group and game. With D&D it's usually just to help highlight an archetype (nothing wrong with that) or to give oneself a stupid mechanical powergaming advantage by making a half-munchkin half-faggot or whatever abomination.

Personally I just like small animal people because A) animals are cute and fluffy, and B) small things kicking inordinate amounts of ass is both hilarious and awesome.

And I guess there are also some deep roleplaying opportunities about what it really means to be a little doggy person, so that's cool too.

You from Australia?

>where is the fun in playing a sentient being in a setting with inaminate objects?

>Where's the fun in playing something made of matter in a setting where there are also things made of energy?

>Where's the fun in playing a being in a setting where there are also not things?

>sentient

That's the keyword in your stupid shit.

Now, if someone actually did introduce a bunch of sentient tools or energy beings, I'd be all over it, but most settings don't really have that.

>Where's the fun in using actual good arguments in a world with slippery slope fallacy?

>B) small things kicking inordinate amounts of ass is both hilarious and awesome

Same here. I like to play the ankle biter races because of this (and any kind of machine race at times, but I digress). It's also why I enjoy playing humans. It's a similar feeling.

It's not to say humans are weak but that everyone else seems to have some kind of crazy advantage even if the big ones are just fluff.

This is simply my opinion but it doesn't 'click' as well cutting down the BBEG when you've practiced sword and sorcery for five lifetimes. Of course you won, and it would have been horrendously shameful if you lost with all your experience. Or you have the blood of dragons in your veins, you can fly, and ...the stakes feel a bit lower because of that. Being a formidable opponent yourself and crushing your foes with overwhelming might as a mere man is just something that feels really good. Especially when you bring down something older, wiser, bigger, and more innately gifted than you. Sort of like a David and Goliath thing.

It's the ever-so-appealing underdog angle. We like to play the weaker and less advantaged things, because they growing into heroes makes for a far greater difference than if you were some dragon-blooded elf thing to begin with.

Thing is, humans have quite a few mechanical advantages in most systems they're involved in - the bonus feat and skill points just one example. So, even if they're fluffwise nothing special, mechanically they still have an edge.

It's why I prefer goblins and kobolds and halflings. They lack that mechanical edge, -and- they're even smaller and weaker than humans, usually kicked around and bullied and seriously underestimated by the big folk. Having one of them grow into a legitimate hero is a character arc I always enjoy.

Because I feel like playing a human.

What more reason do I need? I play for fun after all!

Why do you feel like playing a human, though?

Because I don't feel like RPing an elf in a world where elves are stereotypically seen as tree-hugging faggots. And I don't want to play dwarves because they have a beard and if they don't they are considered crazy.

I just want to play a man who wants to find his place in nature and do his bit in preserving it against the encroaching, so called "civilized" folk. And that's all there is to it.

So let me get this straight - unless you go for 200% escapism, you are not having fun?

> I mean, where's the fun in playing something you already are in real life?

I can't do magic in real life. My cat doesn't respond to basic ranger commands. IRL Clerics can't even cast level 0 spells.

Also, the fun thing about halflings is flinging them, not being them. They're not halbeings, they're halflings.

Why go less than maximum? Why leave things halfway?

>Not Op
>No problem playing humans myself.

Whats wrong with that? You make it sound like a bad thing.

As much cynical it will sound - because I'm not a teen anymore. Not for a loooong while. I don't need special snowflake characters that are all about their quirkiness and special elements to enjoy the game.
That doesn't mean all my characters are Joe Average, but I can't bother when people see only two extreme ends of the spectrum - namely extremely bland and uninspired human characters and super-special non-human weirdos.

There is a shitload of things in-between. Things that only a kid would miss. Hence why I find those constant threads that advocade one or another extreme of this spectrum redundant and childish in their nature. I know I sound like ass-blasted old-fag, but the truth is - it comes with the age. At certain point you simply start seeing the whole thing in broader perspective than binary scale.

Because it's extreme? As I've already stated here: there are more things than "turbo-bland human" and "super-special wacko"

And what I dislike are extremes presented as the only possible choice. Not even extremes on their own, but perception of some stupid, binary choice, where you can get only the top ends of the stick, and not any other part of it

But I identify AS squirrelkin user, it would be Nice to be a cislord for once

Might want to speak for yourself though, 'cause now you're just coming of as a pretentitious begin 20-somethinger. And really, the way you're describing it you're speaking about this like it's a massive life changing moment when you learn to have moderacy in your characters and enjoy it.
Which is by the way, something you just have a to enjoy as a person and is in no-way "the next level" or some non-sense. This is like saying it's a more refined way of having fun, whilst the end is completely the same and really it's just a form of growth you made as a person.

I live on the other side of the country from the rest of my group, meaning I'm usually the last to know of a campaign. So while everyone else has their chars thought of, I end up instead making my character in response to theirs, while still doing my best to come up with a character and backstory that can fit best.

So when they pick fantastical races, I pick a human to ground the group. And when everyone else is joe-normal hummies, I pick something slightly different, but still grounded and relatable to the group. Also, I try my best to avoid taking spotlight from the others, and instead bounce my roleplay and interactions off the others and get them involved.

I always find its best to be flexible in what you can and can't play.

I'm neither calling it "next level" nor implying it's the only way to enjoy thing. My point is about extremes, first, second and last.
When someone gives me a choice between 0 and 1, what real choice is that?

Why I relate it with age is because I'm a literally GM for hire - I'm working in local culture centre as guy running the tabletop section for kids and teens, I'm doing turns in local fantasy club, where mostly students show up and I'm running games in the library (since I'm librarian by trade and actual job) with 30-something people at the table.
It's a matter of observation here - the older they are, the less quirky their characters are, unless they are openly aiming for something wacky. It's not some fundamental norm, but then again, noticable majority of people behave like this. When you are running games for literal dozens of people all year round for pass 17 years, you damn sure see patterns.

So let me repeat myself again, with all points clear to avoid confusion:
- I hate binary extremes presented as the only choice
- I don't mind quirky characters at all (in fact, the whole speshal snofleik meme annoys much more than characters related with it)
- from my observation, the older the players, the less their characters are aimed at being special; the sole fact of playing and role-playing is enough gratification without going for quirky bits and elements
- if you are focusing on role-playing, it's usually the personality of the character and their motivations that drive the role-play, not what race they belong to - that's most often treated as additional flavour at best, mechanical bonus at worst (and greatly depends not only on the setting, but also game in question)

In short - binary choices made out of extremes are evil. Everything else is fine.

You speak only of WHAT your character is. While this can be an important point, it can never eclipse what truly matters - WHO you are. Nothing stops even a human from being interesting and worth playing.

That being said, during character creation, Who my character is is never truly clear to me. Yes, I can have ideas, but they rarely turn out the way I anticipated, for gameplay is strange and unpredictable. During that early stage I only know of the What, and like you said, humans in general aren't terribly interesting. So I spice up the character by playing something else, so that the What I am would become interesting as well, before the Who comes to prominence.

So even though I'm perfectly fine playing humans, I rarely do.

The other races are too gimmicky, for lack of a better word.

If you play anything other than a human your race defines part of your character more often than not, while if you're a human you can define your own character

I feel like the other races are just flavoring to a character. I like to make my character interesting by the backstory, how they act. Also being human in a party or a Tiefling, gnome, elf, and half elf make you the common person but completely unique to the party.

Anything can be gimmicky, or just flavor, if you do it wrong - even if you're human. You could, for instance, choose to play a black human, and turn the blackness into a gimmick.

Hell, how are other human races even any better than fantasy races in this context? How is playing a black or chinese guy (or a white guy if you all happen to be black or chinese) better, less gimmicky, than playing a gnome or half-orc or something?

I dislike playing fantasy races.

I dislike it a lot because I have been told that I "don't play them correctly": so what if I made a dwarf fisherman who has a deep connection to the ocean and a seagull companion, what is it to you? It's my character, not yours after all! The GM said it was okay to play a dwarf who catches fish for a living, so why do other players feel the need to give me a hard time? Seriously, you don't even know the personality of my dwarf, why are you assuming that he won't get along with you just because you play a fucking elf?

I am sick of seeing all the stereotypical snob elves that hate everyone who is not them, jew dwarves that hate the tree-huggers and drink 'till they go comatose, sneaky halflings with hairy feet. This is also why I developed a strong dislike for elves, since the players think it gives them a free-pass to bitch at everyone and everything: and when someone banters back they take it personally. Like, hello, what? Firstly, it's a game so calm the fuck down. Secondly, don't talk smack if you can't take it dude. Just fucking leave. Thirdly: you play an elf. Seriously, do you really think you won't get bitched at by the peasants when they see your oh-so-better-than-you fucking face?

Yeah, I play a human because then I don't have to make a cookie-cutter son of a fuck who has to fit into a certain category wether it be a class, stereotype, attitude or whatever: I can just play a person the way I want to play, without having to worry about the dwarves being mountain-dwelling anvil-fuckers or halflings gypsies just constantly stealing shit from other races because they are tiny and can't do shit.

TL;DR: I want to play a person, not a cardboard cutout of one so fucking fite me m8!

We all hate stereotypes, and players that perpetuate them and tell you you're doing it wrong when you don't play by them, but I don't see how the very idea of fantasy races is soiled because of it.

Hell, I've played many nonhumans and just about none of them have fit the usual stereotype, and no one ever gave me hard time for it. You just have shit players, man. Don't let them ruin the whole game for you.

Besides, a dwarf fisherman turned pirate (as I imagine probably happened) sounds like a pretty kickass character concept. I wouldn't have complained the slightest to have that in my table.

>We all hate stereotypes

I don't, if you're not going to Gimli it up then there's no point in playing a Dwarf. Your uniqueness of character should come from subtle things rather than completely inverting the idea of what a Dwarf is.

What's your opinion on the Hobbit dwarves? Stereotypical enough for you, or too unique to be anywhere but shit tier? Is a dwarven fisherman as bad as they are, or better, or worse?

Burning Wheel does this well

Shame it's also pretentious shit that's pretty much impossible to actually play.

Because I have fetishes for both Shortstacks and Amazons. Hence: I want to fug women much smaller than I and significantly larger, so I'll be a medium sized human avatar.

Why not an elf?

Different user, but that's basically human with pointy ears in my book. Why even bother?

Elves are homosexual, they don't fuck women.

Play a girl elf, then.

Honestly I've never seen any convincing reason it shouldn't just all be humans. Doesn't really matter. Just let people have their fun.

Because it's not rape if it's an elf. I presume that applies to both sides of the transaction.

user, don't want to break that for you, but homosexauality means attraction to own gender, and not being gay.

>Honestly I've never seen any convincing reason it shouldn't just all be humans.

I don't know if it'd convince you, but for me it's never needed more reason than it being fantasy and fiction, and therefore anything goes, and there just being humans would make things kind of bland.

Myself I'm actually almost convinced there should be no humans at all, and they should instead be replaced with elves and hobbits and various animal people. Like, take the opposite route, take them entirely out of the equation. Anyone still wanting to play a human, do the whole Arthur Dent schtick, would be transported in from some other world, thus making them look even more out-of-place normal and making an even greater impression.

But that's the thing. If you play a girl elf, you get to fuck girl hobbits and girl amazons.

What if I play a human, but add cat ears and a cat tail? Maybe a rough tongue too.

No cock though and not really the same dynamic. Don't go into /d/ territory.

Strap-ons are hardly /d/.

>Myself I'm actually almost convinced there should be no humans at all, and they should instead be replaced with elves and hobbits and various animal people.

Here I thought I was the only one.

>needing a piece of equipment on you at all times to emulate the real deal
>need to play them like a girl and not a guy for it to work
>social dynamics, again, not the same

Might as well stick with a guy.

And then there's this faggot.

>I dislike it a lot because I have been told that I "don't play them correctly": so what if I made a dwarf fisherman who has a deep connection to the ocean and a seagull companion, what is it to you?
This is when you start slapping your group. And don't stop until they apologize and/or fall unconscious.

>if you're not going to Gimli it up then there's no point in playing a Dwarf
People like you are the reason why games GMed by me are strictly dwarf-free. And players are kicked out the moment they decide to play as one, regardless of their actual idea for character.
Because I'm sick and tired of faggots who just "Gimli it up"

>mfw played a wide variety of characters, including Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Robots, Vampires, Catpeople and many others
>mfw never played them as a cookie-cutter members of the race, every one had a decent (i hope) backstory and motivation
>mfw never had any problem with groups
>mfw there are spergs on Veeky Forums who insist other people's characters SHOULD be played in a certain way

Seriously, guys, why are we having this dumb discussion yet again?

>And players are kicked out the moment they decide to play as one, regardless of their actual idea for character.

That's a bit much. Did you have a traumatic experience with dwarves or something?

That's a race in my setting, so i'd allow it.

>Maybe a rough tongue too.
I honestly can't think of a situation where that would come up or be plot relevant.

Because I play bards.

No, I have traumatic experience with Gimli meme. Had to endure the entire WAVE of Gimlis in early 00s, right after the films, because, duh, being oldfag sucks and sucks especially when you are forever GM.
So after having to deal with Gimlis for few years straight, I simply put a 2nd rule:
No dwarves. Ever.

I don't care about details, how fleshed out the concept is or whatever else. If it's a dwarf - go find different GM. All my regulars are doing just fine, most of new players I GM for don't mind that at all. Those who mind - they search for new GM.

The 1st rule is: Never be an asshole to anyone else in the group. Ever

Are there any dwarves in your setting at all? Is it possible for a character to die and be Reincarnated as one?

Interacting with fantasy shit is different than playing fantasy shit. I don't really see a problem with either to a point though
I don't really mind races like that. I have a much easier time making them work in a setting than dealing with 500 year lifespans. I just really hate the "let's make a race for every fucking build possible" thing where you end up having more races than places to put them

No dwarves = not existing within the setting.
This also means no equivalent race or culture. The rule exists to fight off specific character (not even type of character, mind you), namely - The Dwarf.
So no, there are no bloody dwarves within the setting. And if I'm GMing using a game that has them - they don't show up in any campaign or scenario and PCs can't be dwarves.
Got problem with any of that - find another GM.

Eh, I don't have a problem with that - I myself find dwarves, and elves to a lesser extent, incredibly overused and thoroughly boring. I was just curious.

youtube.com/watch?v=C7gLs6ikIgw

>you may now kiss the bride
>AAAGH IT'S TRYING TO KILL ME

Well, now you know. I'm allowing my players to play pretty much whatever they want... as long as it's not dorf. And I mean - whatever they want.

>kissing with tongue

Because im autiscitcally humanocentric.
I can't play anything else than average, human male or my fucking OC/tg/D kicks in.

I don't know why but if i can't roleplay some being to my high standards i just give up.

Its fine when im just playing but is a bane for my GMing.

>You play as a human ?
>Why don't you play as a human with green skin or a short human?
>They have a racial personality quirk and are SO different!

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly why the usual standard race thing doesn't work at all. You either ditch everything but humans, or you ditch humans.

Personally I'd favor the latter, if only because it'll end up with a more colorful setting.

In a way everything about other races is just human sterotypes in extreme.

fantasy was a mistake

That's my problem. Yeah sure, I can play dragonborn, I like their looks, but they are still humans with different skin. I have no problem with other people playing what they want, but I will never understand gms/players who are giving me bad looks for playing human. Like, you still roleplay your elfs and dwarves as irish craftsmen/bunch of french dicks, so why can't I play a human who looks like one?

To bring order to the chaos of the world and place the heel of the boot of humanity on the throat of the god damned monster people filling it to the brim

I used to think this way too, but actually being a human is better. Discovering and interacting with all the wonderful, magical and mysterious weird things looses charm if you're a magical weirdo too.

It's really their own fault if the humans in their homebrew setting aren't interesting too. Like take the humans in TES. Human doesn't automatically mean Bob the median everything accountant from the American Midwest.

This. How can I appreciate the weirdness if I got my own weird thing going on? Not that my humans don't end up weird from time to time when I play them.

I like to take the opposite view and play as a nonhuman in a fantasy world that is still mostly filled up with humans, taking a new perspective to things any of us would consider familiar.

Yeah, but a human weirdo is a different thing. You always have this anchor called humanity preventing yourself from going too far. Even if your setting/system allows humans to fly or kill monsters with one punch.

>Le epic other races are humans with x meme XD
I wish this would die.
I wish "standard" fantasy would die.
I wish anyone who unironically blabbers about "standard" fantasy would die.
I wish anyone who polices other people's characters (and is not the GM) would die.

Because unless you're playing your real world self, you are not actually playing something you already are in real life.
You can't be so dense that you think playing a motherfucking wizard or a knight is somehow bland and boring just because it's human. How much do you really have in common with that character besides having roughly the same number of limbs?

What race your character is is arguably one of the least interesting parts of it. The character's attitude, outlook, life story and way of dealing with the world all matter way more than if you have green skin or pointy ears, from the perspective of the player, and playing human gives you a pretty good reference point, you can relate to what existing physically as a human is like. It's a lot harder (arguably without much in the way of payoff) to play something with a completely different physical configuration or senses that you have never experienced.

You can only jerk off to setting trivia so many times, memorable characters are about personality, not playing the most exotic species possible.

This all sounds like someone trying to justify his elf fetish or something.

Dude, how come you NEVER play human?
>Uhm, knock it off you guys, I can play whatever I want...
Sure, but seriously, never?
>What's the big deal, if you can play an orc wy can't I play a fey catboy half demon?! *cries

Isn't it funny that Scifi has more freedom with its races than "standard" Fantasy?

This can also be fun and interesting, I agree, but it's only effective if there's gonna be a lot of social and day-to-day situations. If it's gonna be mainly about adventure and discovering new worlds and horizons, the human is better and funnier in my opinion.