|
I didn't say they were all humans, just as in the OP I didn't suggest a 'human only' game. Star Wars the 'robots and wookies' were 3 of what, a dozen primary characters? Two dozen? There was only one non-human PC in the original Star Trek crew, two in the Next Generation, only one in Enterprise, and so on. Reavers and Cyclons are basically Orcs and Elves of their franchises and LotR is made up exclusively of the four races I mention in the OP. With all due respect, you're making my point for me.Wiggz, while those where humans dominated, look at the 'PC's' of the stories.
Starwars: wookies and robots
Startrek: from Vulcans to borg, shapechangers to Klingons. Plenty of non-humans in the protagonist roles.
Firefly: River isn't what I'd call a 'normal' human. And I wouldn't count the reavers as human anymore.
Battlestar: cylons
LotR: what party was only human there?
Game of Thrones: The only one that really is almost all human.
Primary characters of SW are Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, Obi Wan, Yoda, R2D2, C3P0 and Darth Vader. That's merely 5-4 for Team Homo Sapiens there.
TNG: Picard, Riker, LaForge, Crusher vs Worf, Data, Troi. 4-3 for 100% Kosher Humans. (note: I'm not counting Wesley as a sentient being).
Cylons would be Orcs if orcs were angels sent by the God to save humanity and destroy it at the same time. Which, if I recall correctly, they hardly ever were.
LotR: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Aragorn (whatever the story of his special ancestry was), GodWizards, Hobbits. I count 6 races in the Fellowship alone.
Now that I think about it in LoTR the fellowship only had two humans, and one of those humans was of a special line.
Have there been any humans in the hobbit?
Now that I think about it. Humans are very rare in most of the high fantasy stories I've read or watched.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the variety of all the different race and class options, but I find the distribution of those options throughout the party more important than the options themselves. Most of the games I play are set in Golarion, where non-core races are unusual or rare, so it's distracting to me when the party consists of a Dhampir gunslinger, a Kitsune samurai, a Wayang oracle, and an Oread brawler, and not a single Human, Elf, Fighter, or Cleric. On the other hand, I would get bored very fast if the Beginner Box races and classes were all I could play. My favorite parties usually have 3-4 "normals" (i.e. core races/classes) and 1-2 weirdos.
Every party needs the comedic straight man as a reference point.
Primary characters of SW are Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, Obi Wan, Yoda, R2D2, C3P0 and Darth Vader. That's merely 5-4 for Team Homo Sapiens there.
TNG: Picard, Riker, LaForge, Crusher vs Worf, Data, Troi. 4-3 for 100% Kosher Humans. (note: I'm not counting Wesley as a sentient being).
Cylons would be Orcs if orcs were angels sent by the God to save humanity and destroy it at the same time. Which, if I recall correctly, they hardly ever were.
LotR: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Aragorn (whatever the story of his special ancestry was), GodWizards, Hobbits. I count 6 races in the Fellowship alone.
We can say a lot of things about races/aliens in those settings, but in the end they tend to fall in a general category: Humanoids which act like culturally different humans. The key element here is, "Still acts like a human".
Race/alien heroes that act significantly different than humans are much less common in those stories. Normal habits to them, bewildering to humans. Like dogs sniffing each other; we know they gather a lot of information doing it, but are at a loss at explaining what exactly is happening in their minds. Reversing this, dogs are colorblind, so an intelligent dog would still have a hard time grasping a human's view of the colors of the rainbow.
Heck never mind playing the convincing alien, I've rarely seen a male player play a convincing female PC.
Now that I think about it in LoTR the fellowship only had two humans, and one of those humans was of a special line.
Have there been any humans in the hobbit?
Now that I think about it. Humans are very rare in most of the high fantasy stories I've read or watched.
Once again, we seem to be missing the entire point that the OP specifically mentioned Humans, Dwarves, Elves and Halflings, not 'Humans only'... Those four make up pretty much every single high fantasy story I've ever read.
I made the point that the full range of human drama can be explored and exercised within the scope of playing nothing but... well, humans, but I've never advocated a human only game - merely asked if one needed 16-20 races and 16-20 classes to be able to enjoy playing.
Now that I think about it in LoTR the fellowship only had two humans, and one of those humans was of a special line.
Have there been any humans in the hobbit?
Now that I think about it. Humans are very rare in most of the high fantasy stories I've read or watched.
Once again, we seem to be missing the entire point that the OP specifically mentioned Humans, Dwarves, Elves and Halflings, not 'Humans only'... Those four make up pretty much every single high fantasy story I've ever read.
I made the point that the full range of human drama can be explored and exercised within the scope of playing nothing but... well, humans, but I've never advocated a human only game - merely asked if one needed 16-20 races and 16-20 classes to be able to enjoy playing.
No one needs a score of choices in race and class to enjoy the game, but everyone seems to be agreeing that it can only increase enjoyment to give more choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the only options available to you were Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and the only races Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling, would you be able to enjoy Pathfinder/Fantasy role-play.
Sounds awesome to me. I'd be very happy.
Primary characters of SW are Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, Obi Wan, Yoda, R2D2, C3P0 and Darth Vader. That's merely 5-4 for Team Homo Sapiens there.
TNG: Picard, Riker, LaForge, Crusher vs Worf, Data, Troi. 4-3 for 100% Kosher Humans. (note: I'm not counting Wesley as a sentient being).
Cylons would be Orcs if orcs were angels sent by the God to save humanity and destroy it at the same time. Which, if I recall correctly, they hardly ever were.
LotR: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Aragorn (whatever the story of his special ancestry was), GodWizards, Hobbits. I count 6 races in the Fellowship alone.
Star Wars:
Luke - HumanLeia - Human
Han - Human
Obi Wan - Human
Darth Vader - Human
Chewie - Half-Orc
Yoda - Dwarf
R2D2 - Halfling
C3PO - Elf
Result = over 50% Human with a smattering of other 'common' races.
Star Trek TNG:
Picard - Human
Riker - Human
LaForge - Human
Crusher - Human
Worf - Half-Orc
Data - Elf
Troi - Half-Elf
Result = over 50% Human with a smattering of other 'common' races.
In both cases I'd consider those groups perfectly in line with my original post. Meanwhile Game of Thrones, LotR, Firefly are all inclusive of the original four races as well. BSG is made up of only two races really, the good guys and the bad guys, whether you call the Cylons Orcs or Demons or whatever, they are the repeated generic 'bad guy' against which humanity is matched.
I'm particularly fond of Edward James Olmos' quote regarding his willingness to be cast in a science fiction film intended to explore the full breadth of human drama:
"The first time I see a ray gun or a blue-skinned alien on set, I'm done."
Couldn't agree more.
|
|
If the only options available to you were Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and the only races Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling, would you be able to enjoy Pathfinder/Fantasy role-play... or would you need to have the option of being a Dhamphir Gunslinger or Wayang Dervish/Magus to be able to get into it?
Not a right or wrong kind of thing, just looking for perspectives as more and more options (Mythic, Hybrid, Unleashed, etc.) continue to become available...
Sure, we are playing a homebrew campaign that is human centric and a mix of game of thrones/black sails.(My Dm's description). I have been playing for 30 years and I can count on 1 hand the number of characters who were not core.
Sure, we are playing a homebrew campaign that is human centric and a mix of game of thrones/black sails.(My Dm's description). I have been playing for 30 years and I can count on 1 hand the number of characters who were not core.If the only options available to you were Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and the only races Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling, would you be able to enjoy Pathfinder/Fantasy role-play... or would you need to have the option of being a Dhamphir Gunslinger or Wayang Dervish/Magus to be able to get into it?
Not a right or wrong kind of thing, just looking for perspectives as more and more options (Mythic, Hybrid, Unleashed, etc.) continue to become available...
Love your name.
I'd probably want all the archetypes or more classes than that but I could enjoy a game like that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was about to answer 'yes, very much' but I think I'll change my answer to 'yes, assuming the GM is good.' Those of you who know me are well aware of my position that playing the part of Human Fighter is an ancient and honorable tradition, even if the camel-riding blink dog cavaliers out there get more attention. ;)
A good enough GM and group can make pretty much any campaign work. Tabletop roleplaying is ultimately a social experience, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the best things about the expanded universe of SW are the aliens. The story can also be a whole lot less black and white (Although a distressing number still are...)
less sure,
less rules, no
i would rather have epic rules, mythic rules, better stealth rules, than more classes any day of the week.
Whenever Lucas Foundation produced the first series of games, wookies were portrayed as a non space faring race that were basically renowned for being common slaving targets. Basically as a non space faring race they were not part of the republic and thus not subject to the republics anti slavery laws.
They gained their renown for the most part as being very excellent manual labor slaves due to their incredible size and strength. Not to mention there was years of continuous bickering and such in the galactic senate about altering the laws or trying to convince kashyyk to join the republic in order to end the slave trade.
Yes, but the fame of the Wookie is mostly due to writer/director fiat. Given how large the Galactic Republic is, and given how much of that is "outer rim"-type lawlessness, there have to be many more slave species than just Wookies.
Heck, IRL, there are more slaves in the world today than there were 150 years ago yet I defy most people to name a people-group that is the subject of slavery.
Unless Wookies were chosen by the Galactic Abolitionist Movement as their poster-species the only explanation for the commonality of humans in Star Wars, or most other FRP settings, is designer fiat (aka limited human imagination).
Yeah, Wookies are a species that by all logic should be rare and obscure in-universe, but since the audience knows and loves them writers keep finding excuses to fit them in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I would do it. I don't think this is the right system for it. Taking away class options doesn't make the actual rules less bloated, and this particular example is terrible for balancing because you took the best two classes and paired them with the worst two.
If you don't like the huge amount of options, I don't know why you are playing Pathfinder and not something more old school.
throws up hands
Picard...is that some run-down planet from a season 3 episode?
;-)
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "simplified game" meant streamlined mechanics in-play for ease of use, intuitiveness, and adaptability, I could get behind that.
If it means human-elf-dwarf-halfling fighter-mage-thief, it leaves me cold.
Tieflings and half-orcs and other races are a big part of what draws me to the game.
Not having races tied to classes or class restrictions was a godsend and I never want to go back to what was there before.
I like having bards and barbarians and summoners and ninjas and gunslingers.
While some may look back at older editions and experiences with them as the Good Old Days, there are also many whose own experiences and tastes lead them to remember them as the Bad Old Days. And some of us really don't want to go back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM said you can only play what the OP said, I would have no problem. I never got behind the new races, nor the idea of playing monsters as new races. Likely as not, I will play a human or half-elf. I have tried to conceive the other races getting into our games but couldn't work it in my mind (obviously this was not an issue with the majority).
The one thing I would like about such a game is playing straight melee. There seems to be a push to get most classes to cast spell and I really don't like casters.
I could happily play an all human campaign with the only classes allowed Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. Though I love Paladins.
I could enjoy such a game... but I would get bored of it a lot faster.
The variety keeps me coming back.
Peet
I could happily play an all human campaign with the only classes allowed Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. Though I love Paladins.I could too. With their incredibly dull, poor senses, the rest of the party would be that much less likely to see my rogue slipping from bed roll to bed roll during his watch, slitting the throats of his party members, then escaping with all of their magical equipment into the night to sell off their possessions and retire early to live comfortably for the rest of his life.
Wait, what? I thought rogue was the class that sucked at everything. How could this happen?
With their incredibly dull, poor senses, the rest of the party would be that much less likely to see my rogue slipping from bed roll to bed roll during his watch, slitting the throats of his party members, then escaping with all of their magical equipment into the night to sell off their possessions and retire early to live comfortably for the rest of his life.Wait, what? I thought rogue was the class that sucked at everything.
No, they only suck at HELPING the rest of the party...
I'm currently playing a humans-only campaign. I don't miss the other races at all.
I'm not so keen on the idea of forcing people to play classes that they're bored of / that someone else in the party is already playing.
I agree with what Mikaze said above. I got tired of the Core set-up ages ago.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the only options available to you were Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and the only races Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling, would you be able to enjoy Pathfinder/Fantasy role-play... or would you need to have the option of being a Dhamphir Gunslinger or Wayang Dervish/Magus to be able to get into it?
Not a right or wrong kind of thing, just looking for perspectives as more and more options (Mythic, Hybrid, Unleashed, etc.) continue to become available...
This is an interesting board on which to ask this question. Most folks here play Pathfinder of course, and most feel like they wouldn't play such a game because it lacks options, and more options are better.
The ironic thing is that Old-Schoolers like the sort of game you're describing for exactly the same reason: more options. And therein lies the rub: the Pathfinder game system is bound by the printed options available to players. If you don't have the right Feat, Skill, Magic Item, racial or class feature, then you can't do it!
In a game like OD&D, on the other hand, characters are expected to make up the the wild things they try, and rulings are built on-the-fly for them. Options are literally unlimited. As an old-school guy myself, would I play in your game? Absolutely! And if you use a system that rewards creativity rather than one that is bound by published rules, even better for that sort of thing.
Whether or not simpler class choices results in more enthusiastic role-playing I think depends largely on the GM and players involved. I do believe that rules-bound, splat-heavy games like Pathfinder have spawned a whole generation of players who don't know what it feels like to make up their own flavor or tactics, so fewer choices for such players isn't going to be very much fun. Still, there are plenty of us out there (not necessarily on this board) that relish and seek out the simpler campaigns.
Anecdotal note: our current group plays Core Rules Only, and it is almost painfully fun, every week.
Wait, what? I thought rogue was the class that sucked at everything. How could this happen?I could happily play an all human campaign with the only classes allowed Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. Though I love Paladins.I could too. With their incredibly dull, poor senses, the rest of the party would be that much less likely to see my rogue slipping from bed roll to bed roll during his watch, slitting the throats of his party members, then escaping with all of their magical equipment into the night to sell off their possessions and retire early to live comfortably for the rest of his life.
The rogue is one of the best classes for attacking fellow party members.
The rogue in one of my groups is consistently attacking the party more than the monsters because we are level 11 and he has a +4 will save.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thankfully he's not the best at actually KILLING fellow party members, or you'd be in trouble.
|
If the only options available to you were Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and the only races Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling, would you be able to enjoy Pathfinder/Fantasy role-play... or would you need to have the option of being a Dhamphir Gunslinger or Wayang Dervish/Magus to be able to get into it?
Not a right or wrong kind of thing, just looking for perspectives as more and more options (Mythic, Hybrid, Unleashed, etc.) continue to become available...
This is an interesting board on which to ask this question. Most folks here play Pathfinder of course, and most feel like they wouldn't play such a game because it lacks options, and more options are better.
The ironic thing is that Old-Schoolers like the sort of game you're describing for exactly the same reason: more options. And therein lies the rub: the Pathfinder game system is bound by the printed options available to players. If you don't have the right Feat, Skill, Magic Item, racial or class feature, then you can't do it!
In a game like OD&D, on the other hand, characters are expected to make up the the wild things they try, and rulings are built on-the-fly for them. Options are literally unlimited. As an old-school guy myself, would I play in your game? Absolutely! And if you use a system that rewards creativity rather than one that is bound by published rules, even better for that sort of thing.
Whether or not simpler class choices results in more enthusiastic role-playing I think depends largely on the GM and players involved. I do believe that rules-bound, splat-heavy games like Pathfinder have spawned a whole generation of players who don't know what it feels like to make up their own flavor or tactics, so fewer choices for such players isn't going to be very much fun. Still, there are plenty of us out there (not necessarily on this board) that relish and seek out the simpler campaigns.
Anecdotal note: our current group plays Core Rules Only,...
That's actually what I expected when I first opened this thread, a comparison to a game that is ACTUALLY a simpler game. Instead, it's just about a Pathfinder that does nothing to actually simplify the game. Then I got distracted by the jackassery of people claiming that the only reason not to play with every option ever published would be if you couldn't handle their kind of XXXTREME gaming. [rolls eyes]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely, totally would play in a game that the OP suggests.
In fact, it would probably be one of my preferences. I have zero interest (less than zero interest) in Mos Eisely.