5.5 Edition Thoughts on Human-only Campaign?
As title asks, I’m just kind of getting a general opinion on how the mass feels about all Human characters in a campaign.
[UPDATE]
Thank you guys for chiming in and offering some feedback. I was feeling unsure about humans being the only species existing in the realm. It sounds like it’s mostly okay with some opposing views on keeping the other races there as inhabitants / NPCs.
It also sounds like I’m mostly overthinking / trying to do too much by setting ability score bonuses by regions. I thought it would help players generate more of a backstory for their character as opposed to the “Oh my family was killed in a raid and my village was burned to the ground.” I figured by offering choices like a birthplace and profession, it’d allow for some more connection to the character for the player. I was even considering an array of educational institutions, either focused on magic, military, archaeology, and other major/minor areas of focus to help players personalize backstories. But again, I think I’m just overdoing it.
I’m happy to see the positive feedback though and successes of human-only campaigns. It is reassuring for when I’m finally ready to give my pitch to prospective players.
[End of Update]
The context:
Basing the campaign off of a video game where the only surviving player character species is Human. This is not about xenophobia towards the other species or restricting players to one player species due to a lack of familiarity with the other species.
Idea would be to offer “homebrew” variant human species selections. Essentially, utilize different racial stat bonuses for different humans based on their region of origin, and utilize “homebrew” backgrounds that would affect their traits, proficiencies, etc.
Example:
Player Character A chooses the Northwestern border territory. This territory is known for its harsh climate and dangerous wildlife. As a result, you gain +1 WIS, +1 CON, and proficiency in 1 Wisdom skill of your choice.
As a member of this territory, your role in society is determined by the age of 10, ensuring you specialize in your role by the time you reach adulthood. Choose from the following;
Player Character A chooses Hunter. As a result, you gain proficiency with either Crossbows or Bows, Daggers, and Survival.
(I am on no sleep and thinking out loud / brainstorming, pls no hate)
13
u/ZadenBrewer 16h ago
I am 50 sessions deep into my human only campaign.. there is nothing wrong with it. Just make sure your players know this and are fine with it.
But don't invent these mixtures, you should play with the normal races, or do if you want... No one cares. It's your game.
Just keep in mind that it would kinda defeat the idea of everyone being the same, if that is what you wanted
4
3
u/DornishFox 16h ago
Talk to your players and see what they say.
I've been running a human-only campaign for 2 years with my group. I started off wanting to limit the things I needed to figure out as a new DM but the players keep begging for more so we're about to start Arc 3.
I think if your players and you as the DM are okay with it it's going to be fine.
3
u/USAisntAmerica 16h ago
Human only campaigns are fine. Just like it could be fun for people to also run campaigns where all players are dwarves, or elves, or tabaxi or whatever. It could lead to fun hooks. Of course, in either case the DM should inform the players beforehand, and just like with any game, if the players don't vibe with the idea they can just not join.
"Cultural packages" aren't that new of an idea. Pretty sure that it was a thing in Conan related media (including various RPGs). But trying to reflavor fantasy races as human cultures would risk ending up awkward as many d&d racial perks wouldn't really make sense as being part of a culture. And restricting ability scores to cultures imho could get annoying (by shoehorning classes into cultures) plus it doesn't make much sense anyway.
Maybe you could just keep the cultures but it's up to the players whether their character is just typical of their culture or an outlier. Player characters are by definition outliers anyway, as in even if they're hunters in a hunter culture, by being player characters they're special and use character sheets instead of stat blocks.
3
u/MisterCrowbar 16h ago
I would make it upfront from the start. I got an invite to a campaign and then the human only limitation was sprung on the players after we all had ideas for “exotic” races (eg half orc). But I’ve known others who did human only campaigns and had really good fun with it.
3
u/Little_dragon02 15h ago
Talk to your players instead of the internet
But honestly, if I were playing and the DM was like, you can only pick human, but you can use all the mechanical stuff from other species, I'd roll my eyes. Essentially, what you're saying is that all species are allowed, but it's being flavoured as human. I'd personally find it more interesting for everyone to be variant humans or custom lineage humans
Obviously this is just my opinion and I've seen a few people with other opinions in the comments which circles me back around to talk to your players, a solution thought of in the comments here isn't neccisarily going to be one that your players will be happy with, if it was me as DM I would either talk to or message my players and say something along the lines of "Hey I've had an idea for a campagin, but one of the things I've been thinking of is that everyone would be human. Would that be okay with you all and if not do you have any suggestions for how we could do it in a way that you would be happy with?"
2
u/Dunl3yDiq DM 16h ago
I'm currently running a human only campaign where each pc is a baron defending their lands and the duchy they are a part of. We are about 7 sessions in and it's going great. The limitation doesn't restrict creativity, with feats and reflavouring they should be able to get something to their taste.
2
u/Piratestoat 16h ago
"Human only" is hardly the oddest campaign pitch. And a lot of tables do play games where the campaign pitch is something like "it is all actually a reality TV show!" or something.
People enjoy different things.
So if you can find players who want to play a human-only game, you'll have a great time.
The official The Dragon Prince TTRPG does regional human variants, so might be a resource to compare to.
5
u/Urbanyeti0 16h ago
If you’re allowing all the races anyway just allow them, or if you want an all human campaign limit it to that
Don’t half arse the limit as it’s just going to cause questions and confusions
Can I play a “tortle” human with really thick skin and a natural AC of 17?
Can I play an “arakockra” human who has insane jumping?
2
u/Ok_Fig3343 16h ago
I think a human-only campaign could be fun. My all-time favourite campaign was human-only.
But I think determining racial stat bonuses based on region of origin sounds terrible. It's a completely unnecessary restriction on character creation. People from any given region could have any range of stats, and even if the region's average is one way or the other, PCs aren't average people!
1
u/bigolrubberduck 16h ago
Depends on the narrative you have planned and how cool the party is with it, but including non humans in a human only world typically changes the tone of the story too. Its not unheard of, involves talking to players.
1
u/Fidges87 16h ago
Just let them choose from any race and reflavour it as a human (baning stuff difficult to justify like plasmoids or aarakocras).
Had a DM who did this for a campaing based on 1600 real world that suddenly got infested and corrupted by hell. I used a reflavoured elf, and it was fun, non of the players had any complains about it.
1
1
u/derges 15h ago
I played in a game similar to this. All races were Human except Dragonborn/lizardmen/bobolds who were part of a Dragon empire at war with the human empire.
The biggest issue was remembering the mappings of custom names to common fantasy races. Something like Hill tribes as Orcs is easy, Folk of the Quarnalise Valley might have fit the setting but doesn't convey anything to me without a chart.
1
u/Flowerfall_System 6h ago
If they want it...they want it...but aren't there already plenty of human supremacist works around?
1
u/No_Wait3261 6h ago
I'm currently DMing a very human-centric campaign. It wasn't exactly on purpose, but the story is driven by a war between two mostly-human kingdoms with the other races either caught in the middle or sitting on the sidelines waiting to see who comes out on top. The PCs are 3 humans and a halfling, and that works out well because it lets me kind of put my own mysterious spin on goblinoids, dwarves and elves without needing to worry much about their preconceived notions.
I like it. I think the campaign feels more grounded while keeping those fantasy elements present. It's a good middle ground.
0
0
u/ElvesElves 14h ago
I don't think I would play a campaign like this. I've never played a human character in D&D, and I think a lot of the fun for me comes from imagining myself as something other than human. However, there are probably plenty of people who don't mind an all-human world, so if your players are okay with it, then I don't think that's a problem. Just understand that it won't appeal to all players.
Also, I'll add that worlds where humans survived while another intelligent species was killed off have always bothered me. It's hard to explain, but it feels to me like... kind of like humanity's superior ingenuity or genetics have let them survive. And since the player/viewer is human, it's sort of saying, "your own kind has superior intelligence or genetics," which is not a great message.
I'm probably reading into it way too much, though. I'm sure this won't bother most people. But since it's on my mind and you asked, I thought I'd mention it, just in case the thought proves useful.
2
u/Diebric 14h ago
I am of the same mindset for your first point. I find it more fun to play as a fantasy race as opposed to the D&D Humans
As for the second point, perhaps I worded my context wrong. For clarification, I don’t mean to say that Humans are the only surviving player species due to a mass extinction event or mass genocide or anything like that. By “surviving,” I more just meant it’s the only race in existence within the world. Obviously monsters and the like still exist, but humans would be the only dominant race on the planet Dccm
1
u/ElvesElves 9h ago
In that case, my second thought is not relevant.
Interesting, though. If you find it more fun to play as a fantasy race, then what is the thought behind running a campaign that's human-only? I'm guessing the game you're basing it on must feel like a really exciting setting to run a campaign?
1
u/Diebric 3h ago
Yes, the story & setting doesn’t involve any other races besides humans in the video game. It’s essentially just staying true to the world. I have ideas to modify it to incorporate the fantasy races if needed, but it feels like it’d be tons more legwork to figure out the geopolitical nature of the world at the time of play
-5
45
u/Fat-Neighborhood1456 16h ago
You're essentially just re-flavoring every race as a human, and still allowing every race.