Playing human
- Thread starter evi1r0n
- Start date
okay i just don't understand why this is such a problem if this many players want it then why are they being denied it? i mean at least see if you can find someone who wants to write it, then if players don't want to get it or read it then that's fine but it will be there for the ones who want it.
meltedwing
Adept
Robb, what personal affront are you perceiving in our effort to get the human race defined (at all) through better entries in the book and perhaps a national race packet?
Do you feel that this will in some way destroy your enjoyment of the game?
Do you feel that this will in some way destroy your enjoyment of the game?
why would you think it's personal? I agree there should be a racial entry in the book. I don't like the idea of a national race packet because no one's really said what would be in it. Since race packets are created to restrict characters dress, attitude, etc., I can only assume that those are things that would populate it. I personally don't like that, nor do I understand your desire for this since you are already human and there are no racial requirements. If you want a cultural packet, these should be developed by your local chapter (as many chapters have already done). What is your problem with chapters having control over this to the point of calling for a national packet instead?
Alavatar
Baron
To be fair, Humans are restricted in that they cannot do the following:
No fake beards.
No fake sideburns
Don't wear flashy clothes and have an accent.
Don't accent your costume with furs and be superstitious.
Don't color your skin? (i.e. no pasty white guys playing a black dude)
There may be others, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
No fake beards.
No fake sideburns
Don't wear flashy clothes and have an accent.
Don't accent your costume with furs and be superstitious.
Don't color your skin? (i.e. no pasty white guys playing a black dude)
There may be others, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
meltedwing
Adept
I asked what personal issue you have with this due to the voracity with which you have opposed it and attacked those who support it. You seem personally affronted.
As far as the rest of that, the fact that no one has given you a race packet to approve is no reason to be so rude to other people.
I don't care what race I play, I want a race packet to draw from when designing new characters and helping to refine the ones that I already play. For instance I could play a Sarr and take all my cues for how to play it from the Kilrathi, but clearly the powers that be have a vision for how Sarr should be played and have gone so far as to create a national race packet to encourage people to play them properly.
Humans are the only race that doesn't get anything.
Your argument for there not being one single source for humans is flawed. The argument you've presented and the conclusion you've drawn could be applied to every race, at which point you are arguing for there to be absolutely no racial packets at all. If that is the case then clearly you are playing the wrong game.
As far as the rest of that, the fact that no one has given you a race packet to approve is no reason to be so rude to other people.
I don't care what race I play, I want a race packet to draw from when designing new characters and helping to refine the ones that I already play. For instance I could play a Sarr and take all my cues for how to play it from the Kilrathi, but clearly the powers that be have a vision for how Sarr should be played and have gone so far as to create a national race packet to encourage people to play them properly.
Humans are the only race that doesn't get anything.
Your argument for there not being one single source for humans is flawed. The argument you've presented and the conclusion you've drawn could be applied to every race, at which point you are arguing for there to be absolutely no racial packets at all. If that is the case then clearly you are playing the wrong game.
meltedwing
Adept
Alavatar said:
I would note that people have been called out for "disguising themselves as another race" for doing only one of the "this and that" combos.
If I'm all dressed up in furs I can easily be confused for a barbarian. On the other hand, if I totally look human, but am superstitious... am I easily confused for a barbarian?
The accent/superstition stuff needs to go away in my opinion. I'm totally fine with Gypsy/Barbarian characters being required to do those things, but they shouldn't be racially restrictive. Meaning humans should be capable of superstition and/or accents.
meltedwing said:
not so, but i guess you are by the tone of your replies about how "rude" i am.
meltedwing said:
because you get to play them anyway you'd like. no restrictions (other than the obvious "don't dress / use makeup like another race" restriction) unless your chapter imposes them.
meltedwing said:
that was an example addressing a single comment about having racial heroes and lands. I've not read all the race packets out there (as i only play 2 races) but i would say that if they do include national racial heroes and lands, then yes, that's a terrible idea and they really shouldn't. but it's a little late for that
Duke Frost
Baron
The national part of the race packets are very small to begin with and only contain what all members of a race have in common. With the expanded sections in the book, they might not even really be needed any longer. No national packet contains culture, racial heroes, architectural examples, etc. These are all the dominion of local chapters, and with good reason. It allows local plot teams freedom to create their own game world without having to constantly check with a national plot committee. They have their own cities, countries, leaders and villains. This also cuts down on the work and waiting time that would be necessary if say all of our dark elves were from "national dark elf central cavern" and all reported to the same leader.
All other races must conform to some of the basic tenants...dark elves are all secretive and hold honor paramount, all elves abhor necromancy, all barbarians are superstitious, etc. Humans can be any of those things or none of them.
I agree that maybe there should be a better racial entry for humans, even if it is to say they can pretty much have any attitude, culture and beliefs (within the context of a no religion, fantasy world).
Scott
All other races must conform to some of the basic tenants...dark elves are all secretive and hold honor paramount, all elves abhor necromancy, all barbarians are superstitious, etc. Humans can be any of those things or none of them.
I agree that maybe there should be a better racial entry for humans, even if it is to say they can pretty much have any attitude, culture and beliefs (within the context of a no religion, fantasy world).
Scott
meltedwing
Adept
Very good points Scott. I think if there was a solid rulebook entry then you are probably correct that a national packet wouldn't be necessary. I think the big issue at hand is the fact that someone can tell you that you're playing human wrong, but no one tells you how to play one right. I really feel like the whole "disguise" section of the rulebook needs to be done away with and/or replaced with something that says "you can't add/remove prosthetics or racially required makeup. IE, dark elves can't go without makeup. Dwarves can't take their beards off. Humans can't wear fake beards/chops.
The one contention really is the gypsy clothes/accent and the barbarian clothes/superstition.
It shouldn't be against the rules for a human to have an accent and/or be superstitious.
There are really two main reasons I'm looking for there to be better documentation on how to play humans, and that's because they don't appear to be a valid race based on reading the book and the other is because humans are currently not allowed to act like humans act (IE. with accents and superstitions).
I can definitely be ok with not dressing gaudy as a human, and while I think humans should be allowed to wear some fur, they don't need to be wearing an all fur suit.
Perhaps the guidelines for this could be part of a new human section in the book, saying something like "humans who dress like and sound like gypsies need to either drop the accent or dress differently, but are not required to drop both."
The one contention really is the gypsy clothes/accent and the barbarian clothes/superstition.
It shouldn't be against the rules for a human to have an accent and/or be superstitious.
There are really two main reasons I'm looking for there to be better documentation on how to play humans, and that's because they don't appear to be a valid race based on reading the book and the other is because humans are currently not allowed to act like humans act (IE. with accents and superstitions).
I can definitely be ok with not dressing gaudy as a human, and while I think humans should be allowed to wear some fur, they don't need to be wearing an all fur suit.
Perhaps the guidelines for this could be part of a new human section in the book, saying something like "humans who dress like and sound like gypsies need to either drop the accent or dress differently, but are not required to drop both."
Every time I seem to comment on something, I'm talking smack against the game. The problem with the Gypsy and Barbarian is that they actually are humans. They are just different culturally and instead of actually fixing this somewhere along the 20 years NERO has been around, they never did. Humans should have been redone ages ago. When picking human as a race, you should then have had to pick a culture, from which your racial benefits and restrictions, etc. were taken from. Ideally, you then have a generic culture called 'wanderer' or something like that that has some generic benefit and no established culture. There were lots of humans when I played NERO back in the day and it was no secret that people wanted something that defined the race a bit better. I'm really surprised it never changed, but that can happen in such huge games where many different chapters are involved.
If you see any fantastic setting involving Humans, they are highly likely to be average. Smart but not the smartest, strong but not the strongest, having ability to use magic but no affinity for it. They live longer than mayflies but shorter than elves. In other words, humans are The Mario. They may be bastards but not necessarily chaotic evil. They don't have any special powers, but often their "power" is adaptability, and it is likely to put them on the fast-track on Kardashev's scale.
Since most game officials are human, as are most of the players, it's likely for them to make humans something like a standard to compare other races to (These guys are like humans, but short and tough! These guys are like what I wish humans were like. These guys are like humans mixed with animals!). Thus it's pretty easy to imagine them. Naturally, this sentiment ignores that good old Homo Sapiens has quite a few skills we excel at that most creatures cannot match as well as vice versa.
Since most game officials are human, as are most of the players, it's likely for them to make humans something like a standard to compare other races to (These guys are like humans, but short and tough! These guys are like what I wish humans were like. These guys are like humans mixed with animals!). Thus it's pretty easy to imagine them. Naturally, this sentiment ignores that good old Homo Sapiens has quite a few skills we excel at that most creatures cannot match as well as vice versa.
This has been a fascinating read. I think someone else nailed it when they said gypsies, barbarians, and what are referred to as humans are in fact ALL humans with different cultures and that culture packets (Barbarian, Gypsy, Wanderer) would make more sense than race packets since in essence they are all the same race. I agree. While barbarians are typically thought of as norse-like, conan-esque, fur clad ruffians who enjoy overdrinking, copius bloodshed, and wenches, this also applies to the khans and the huns, which could also be considered barbarian but from different cultures. Heck, most of those could be applied to a few different cultures.
Some concessions have to be made for obvious reasons. No one (I know of) is actual dwarf height, differentiating between dwarf pc and human pc could be troublesome. Dwarves are well known for their drinking (so are many others), their battle prowess (so are many others), their smithing (fine for crafters), and their beards. So, sorry humans, but you can't have long beards anymore. Gypsies have no distinguishing physical features, but their culture (dress/attitudes) differentiates them. So, sorry "humans", no biting their fashion sense/attitude. Barbarians wore more than furs, nor were they the only culture to wear furs or face paint, but in order to differentiate their culture from the others, the stigmas were put in place.
There was originally complaints that there wasn't enough information on humans, but as I see it there's plenty. Barbarian (human), gypsies (human)...if you aren't one of the two, you more or less have free reign to decide your culture provided it doesn't clash with one that differentiates another or violate the rules, and is approved by plot. I'm a newbie and have read the rules and the player handbook for my chapter and maybe there's something I'm not seeing yet, but...ok, there is because I don't see it. I don't really understand the crux of the original complaint I guess. Are human PC's, as a group, discouraged or are specific people discouraged because they can't have luxurious beards? e.g. something specific
There are all of these fantastical creatures in the alliance world that have come from the imaginations of man (and woman
), yet we (human pc's) seek to take ourselves as we are in the real world and just plop ourselves in, dress ourselves up, and then complain when we can't be as cool as all of the people that came from someone's imagination? Unless, we are going to re-create "humans" (meaning non-barbarian or gypsy) into something more fitting in a fantasy environment (we now have a third eye, four nipples, and psychic powers for example), we can't really complain about getting the short straw lol. So we don't have feathers or pointed ears. So we can't have long beards or wear clown clothes or furs, there is much more which can define us such as....dun dun dun, our roleplay! The superstition thing should probably be there as a part of all cultures, however, it shouldn't be exclusive any one. Historically, many cultures have their own superstitions. Based on my roleplay of said superstitions along with the fact that I'm NOT wearing furs, no one should be confusing me with a barbarian. Common sense has to prevail at some point.
Some concessions have to be made for obvious reasons. No one (I know of) is actual dwarf height, differentiating between dwarf pc and human pc could be troublesome. Dwarves are well known for their drinking (so are many others), their battle prowess (so are many others), their smithing (fine for crafters), and their beards. So, sorry humans, but you can't have long beards anymore. Gypsies have no distinguishing physical features, but their culture (dress/attitudes) differentiates them. So, sorry "humans", no biting their fashion sense/attitude. Barbarians wore more than furs, nor were they the only culture to wear furs or face paint, but in order to differentiate their culture from the others, the stigmas were put in place.
There was originally complaints that there wasn't enough information on humans, but as I see it there's plenty. Barbarian (human), gypsies (human)...if you aren't one of the two, you more or less have free reign to decide your culture provided it doesn't clash with one that differentiates another or violate the rules, and is approved by plot. I'm a newbie and have read the rules and the player handbook for my chapter and maybe there's something I'm not seeing yet, but...ok, there is because I don't see it. I don't really understand the crux of the original complaint I guess. Are human PC's, as a group, discouraged or are specific people discouraged because they can't have luxurious beards? e.g. something specific
There are all of these fantastical creatures in the alliance world that have come from the imaginations of man (and woman
), yet we (human pc's) seek to take ourselves as we are in the real world and just plop ourselves in, dress ourselves up, and then complain when we can't be as cool as all of the people that came from someone's imagination? Unless, we are going to re-create "humans" (meaning non-barbarian or gypsy) into something more fitting in a fantasy environment (we now have a third eye, four nipples, and psychic powers for example), we can't really complain about getting the short straw lol. So we don't have feathers or pointed ears. So we can't have long beards or wear clown clothes or furs, there is much more which can define us such as....dun dun dun, our roleplay! The superstition thing should probably be there as a part of all cultures, however, it shouldn't be exclusive any one. Historically, many cultures have their own superstitions. Based on my roleplay of said superstitions along with the fact that I'm NOT wearing furs, no one should be confusing me with a barbarian. Common sense has to prevail at some point.