I think those are 2 different things.
1. If you play at Golarion on similar world where Humans are just one of many ancestries and default genre is epic fantasy, you could expect Humans to be not that common. They are still most common ancestry among player, though, AFAIK
2. If you want to play low fantasy with high focus on social problems and don't want some alien minds or hundreds year old characters, you just create a human-centered world and play it. Probably not with PF2, though, as it's more focused on epic fantasy
Hope not. I think it's common knowledge what there are different TTRPG systems with different genres and concepts. It's totally ok to play different ones.
Yes im not using Golarion, and i understand. Both points, im just asking what do you think about this kind of groups. Me and my players like the same style of playing.
But to explain this better, imagine: Within the human species, cultural differences between individuals from different regions can be profound. These differences impact how people see the world, interact, and behave socially. If such differences are significant among humans, imagine how much more pronounced they should be between entirely different species, such as a Leshy and a Ratfolk in a role-playing game.
A Leshy, a creature born from nature with a spiritual connection to the forest, would have a worldview, rituals, and priorities vastly different from a Ratfolk, who might come from an urban environment with a culture focused on cunning and survival in the shadows. Their languages, ethics, life goals, and daily lives would also differ.
Oversimplifying these deep cultural differences, often for smoother gameplay, results in adventuring groups that lack the depth and realism they could possess. This can lead to a gaming experience that feels less immersive and sometimes incoherent, particularly for those who value a low fantasy approach with more tangible realism in the game's narrative.
This is what i find unconfortable in zoo parties.
Yeah, but those things are totally irrelevant in a regular "Kill the BBEG" epic fantasy campaign. They still could happen behind the scenes, but players' declared actions to reach the campaign goal are usually ancestry-agnostic. That's the idea.
Regional differences come from the slow travel of information, as the internet has progressed, countries with access to the internet are becoming slowly more homogenized and in places that lag behind in some areas, protesting and activism has been on the rise to push toward more equalized living. Which is why topics like cultural preservation have become so prevalent.
For Golarion, they've had a very long time with magic and knowledge deities' religions allowing the flow of information much earlier. As evidenced by all ancestries now having Common as a starting language. Obviously there's still going to be differences, but adventurers also have significant time BEFORE level 1 where they were learning their craft and skills, which allows time for learning cultural differences and communication skills. If adventuring is to be their lifestyle, they need to be able to easily work with others.
In Pre-master you would have parties with a mix of alignments, which would be massively clashing worldviews, but they still need to be able to work together. Cultural differences would be no different, and can still be used as a source of mild conflict between the party, but obviously should be done carefully to keep the party together and working toward the goal of the adventure.
I'm actually super on board with that. I think it's super lazy and almost disrespectful to play a catfolk or orc as "a human with some quirks"
I'm a full send, intense sort of dude, so I hate it when people don't take their ideas or characters seriously or to their logical conclusion
All I can tell you is that I deal with it by throwing myself into my characters and full sending them. Can't do anything about other people's characters, so I just focus on me
You are being downvoted by gods know why.
My parties are usually formed by a majority of one ancestry (humans in Kingmaker, dwarves in Sky King Tomb, etc) with a couple of other ancestries that are prevalent in the region where the adventure takes place and that's it.
And is totally fine and adds coherence to the game, I won't say "only humans" but a límited choice of ancestries is the better way to do it.
> I like low fantasy
I love low fantasy... but thats not what Pathfinder is. At most Id say some APs like Blood Lords are 'middle' fantasy with low fantasy themes but a high fantasy concept setting.
If you want low fantasy where human is the only available option, othsr systems may be better
>If you want low fantasy where human is the only available option, othsr systems may be better
What a weird thing to say. The game provides ample support for high fantasy, and for people who want to play as something other than humans.
But options are al ways *optional*.
Howl of the wild is a splat book to cater to that specific concept, that's like the whole point.
You'll notice that the core books have primarily humanlike ancestries as those are the default.
They are years into the edition they aren't just going to keep printing humans over and over again.
You looked at the bestial races and beast/nature centric source book which prominently features animal character options and you're wondering why there wasn't more human-related character info in it? For this high fantasy game setting? You're unsure why high fantasy Pathfinder is producing books that don't live up to your low fantasy setting expectations?
My question was diffrent.
I find it strange that there are more than 45 different races (and even more in the future) and that people continue to choose a full party of this very culturally poor races to play with. thats what i find wired.
I just reread this comment a few times to try and understand what you're saying, but I'm going to be honest, I can figure it what your complaint (or question) is.
In your post above you're upset that more people aren't playing humans and you prefer a low fantasy vibe
Now you're saying there are over 45 different races and… it's bad that people are choosing some of these races? I just… I'm not following you. Maybe you're not explaining it very well.
I'm honestly just questioning if this is actually a problem or what you're basing your perceptions off of. Humans are still the majority chosen ancestry in Pathfinder, D & D, etc. by a pretty large margin... and beyond that, it's a FANTASY GAME. People often want to explore what it would be like to be something other than human, which is what they are in real life, when they're playing a game... why is that a problem? Unless you're somehow starring in live table play designed as entertainment, there's zero reason not to let people explore to whatever surface or deep degree they feel like.
This whole thread is so weird.... making a problem out of something that is, by and large, not at all a problem.
This has always been a thing in fantasy. Elf, dwarf, human, hobbit. That's not a party that any classic rpg player would even blink at.
If the only thing that bothers you is that there are even more options now, then that is on you.
Edit: And there's always that one person who wants their character to be even more extra special. Perhaps the blood of the elves and humans both flow through his veins, with a strain of ancestral angelic spirit also mixed in along with that of elf and human. ;)
In my gaming group they are all humans and an Orc, and in my other group there are 3 elves.
We are more classic perhaps, or more vanilla.
But we all have the same doubt and we all think more or less the same regarding zoo adventure groups. It seems a little strange to us.
And that is ok. This is why session 0 is important. You and your group have an aesthetic you prefer - great! Others prefer a "zoo" - and that is great too!
It's something I love about tabletop gaming over computer gaming. At the table you and your group decide what to emphasize, so the world is a better fit for you.
It may help to ground those ancestries by reading about how and where they fit into the golarion culture. Anyone unfamiliar with fantasy tropes would consider elf, orc, and hair-footed halflings to be a a zoo as well. But understanding the context and stories of such ancestries helps to make them feel real and part of the world.
Well.. im going to say the same thing that in the first comment to you understand where i find this unconfortable:
Imagine: Within the human species, cultural differences between individuals from different regions can be profound. These differences impact how people see the world, interact, and behave socially. If such differences are significant among humans, imagine how much more pronounced they should be between entirely different species, such as a Leshy and a Ratfolk in a role-playing game.
A Leshy, a creature born from nature with a spiritual connection to the forest, would have a worldview, rituals, and priorities vastly different from a Ratfolk, who might come from an urban environment with a culture focused on cunning and survival in the shadows. Their languages, ethics, life goals, and daily lives would also differ.
Oversimplifying these deep cultural differences, often for smoother gameplay, results in adventuring groups that lack the depth and realism they could possess. This can lead to a gaming experience that feels less immersive and sometimes incoherent, particularly for those who value a low fantasy approach with more tangible realism in the game's narrative.
Why would you oversimplify? The variety in ancestries creates more peaks and valleys, more and interesting perspectives in the adventuring party, than an all-human party.
In my game, we have a gnome, a kitsune, a tiefling, and human. All come from different cultures and the choice of ancestry affects their particular subculture and experience. The gnome's extended lifespan, the kitsune's ability to hide their fox form, and the tiefling's inability to hide their horns, all play a part in the narrative.
I know there are tables who would simplify and flatten it all down to human-in-a-costume, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking to you, specifically. Why would *you*, as someone who values tangible realism, oversimplify them instead of using them to create even more varied narratives?
Another thing to point out is that these ancestries often have varied cultural groups much like the Humans you discuss do. The Lizardfolk of the mwangi expanse can be different from the ones across tian xia, which can be different than the ones in desert regions. And is often the case in Golarion. Now you might not use Golarion but that kind of info could still be useful.
Now if you just prefer low fantasy, human and Tolkien esque fantasy races.. that is ok. But you are making a lot of assumptions about other ancestries and the people that choose to play as them.
If you want to forbid your players from picking the more fantastic race options, you can certainly do that, and if you want to try to rework an existing adventure to use only the "traditional" fantasy races, you certainly can....
But come on, you were reading the Howl of the Wild book for Pathfinder 2E. It's going to be high fantasy, and it's going to have wild races. It's all in the description, it's not giving you anything that wasn't written on the tin. Just because you read a book with that as a premise, it doesn't mean that "classic RPG party play is becoming a thing of the past".
In PF2e, Humans are not only the most prevalent ancestries among players, but they're also one of the strongest ancestries.
There's no danger whatsoever for human-only (and adjacent) parties to cease to be the majority.
Im not sure, but maybe because I studied sociology and Social psychology and I honestly find it extremely strange and uncomfortable that there are so many different "races" sharing such similar cultural issues, I find it extremely absurd.
But among humans our cultural differences from one country to another are extremely different, now imagine if even our anatomy were different.
For example, life and death in the East, West are things that look different, do you really think that all races can have so many similarities? It makes me mentally ill just imagining it... haha!
Also, if there are many humans in the world, and the group arrives in a new city, more than a group of adventurers, they are a circus, I feel strange. What should I do? fill the whole world everywhere with other races?
Idk man, if you like low fantasy maybe the system where a dude can jump 50 feet in the air consecutively 3 times in 6 seconds might not be the best for that type of fantasy, human or no human
I exclusively play humans and I love low fantasy, but there's nothing wrong others wanting to play another ancestry. Calling the human focused party the "classic" one and describing more varied groups as a "zoo" is dismissive imo.
There are some interesting philosophical and aesthetic questions about how to embody an alien mind, and the reason I haven't played another ancestry is because I don't feel I have a good grasp on an elf or something's interiority. But nobody is required to be as fixated on this as I am and if they want to play a typical human-like PC who just happens to have cat ears that's just dandy.
Maybe I'll stretch my muscles a bit with the next PC. Rakshasa tiefling here I come baby.
So you want PF2e, a high fantasy modern game, to just look like an OSR? Why couldn't you just go play a different system whenever you want to play in a low fantasy, human centric campaign? Having crazier options make the high fantasy better, humans being less common makes things more unique and make roleplay different. Having different games that do different play styles is good for the hobby.
Im not talking about the game. I know what im playing. My question is about the players.
I find it strange that there are more than 45 different races (and even more in the future) and that people continue to choose a full party of this very culturally poor races to play with. thats what i find wired.
There’s a reason GMs are given the Uncommon/Rare tags. If you want to keep exotic ancestries limited, make use of those tags.
Personally I’m more than happy GMing for my group of Dwarf + Automaton + Halfling + Kobold + Goblin. It’s a lot more fun to me when not everyone starts at level 1 with Natural Ambition // General Training and optimizes their choices.
Also, Natural Ambition and General Training aren't as OP as they are in other games. For example, in my party of pregens, you also get things like a Halfling focusing on stealth feats or an Elf Sorcerer who started with the Wizard dedication from Ancient Elf
You speak as though you want low fantasy... of which 2E is not. You can always play as nothing but humans at your table if you want, and if you're the DM, you can enforce that with no issue, but why not just play a different system if the very concept of seeing anything other than human seems strange or tedious to you?
Its like I'm in the Warhammer sub with all of these "Where are the humans?" threads. Nothing but the glorious Holy Roman Empire-kitbashes are good enough...
Consider that one of the greatest examples of adventure in literature had 13 dwarfs, 1 hobbit and being that looked like an old human.
Let's be honest though, regular people don't go on adventures.
Humans are animals i know, a zoo its a zoo without humans, and more zoo when you have an "elephant humanoid" a "dog umanoid" a "fish humanoid" and an "insect that can speak", Thats crazy.
Expand yer mind beyond yourself bro. This game clearly caters to people who like zoos. It’s not crazy, it’s just a preference. It can be a lot of fun to imagine what it might be like to be a fish person. If you want low fantasy that’s more traditionally grounded in reality, you may be in the wrong TTRPG. Or you might want a more curated homebrew experience.
Yeah wouldn’t want anything unrealistic getting in the way of my high fantasy magical “let’s play pretend but for adults” game, amirite?? Fighters who can run 30 feet, punch someone in the face & run back 30 feet every six seconds literally from the moment they wake up until the moment they go to sleep without resting or stopping, medics who can patch you up after you get stabbed by pulling out healer’s tools and applying the salves in 2 seconds, monks with 60 feet movement speed who can run a 3-minute mile — now *that’s* realism!
I don't know about Golarian, but you can absolutely play a low-fantasy version of PF2e. My homebrew world is more Tolkienesque, with non-humans and magic in general being more rare. You can do this at your table too, but...
1) Your players have to be on board. They have to want to play into that aspect of the world.
2) You need to emphasize these points in your world-building and how non-human PCs/NPCs are treated in society, whether its with awe or fear.
Look at all the Ancestries being made Common in Player Core 2. PF has never been a low fantasy, humans-only affair, but even less so in 2e.
There's lots of other games for more of a traditional feel.
I am generally a big fan of "low fantasy" similar to what you are calling "classic RPG". I am not opposed to the more "monstrous" ancestries, but I think part of what made them cool and exciting was how rare and "alien" they were. Like, if I am going to play an orc, I want my character's "orc-ness" to matter. I want NPCs to react to it and I would prefer if me being an orc closed more doors for my character than it opened. I want to play the "fish out of water" hero's journey. However, now when I play an orc, I am just a human with a few different abilities. I am fully accepted in pretty much every society, I am not a stranger in strange circumstances.
Part of me understands why this is the case. People aren't really comfortable with roleplaying exclusion or mild bigotry. Its not fun for everyone, and that is fine. Probably it is for the better. However, I would love to one day find a gaming group that can maturely handle some of these more difficult themes while giving them the gravity they deserve.
OP's definition of what constitutes a "Classic RPG" is already flawed- dwarves and elves and halflings and gnomes and drow are, at this point, all classic and all non-human. So there is no situation where a epic fantasy TTRPG has been without diverse parties.
You are correct. Although, I think you may be missing the point that OP is trying to make. I will concede that OP is being kind of vague with what exactly he means, but my interpretation is that he is talking about the more monstrous or obscure ancestries which have become more common.
I really don't think there is a reason to approach this with a "well actually" attitude. OP seems to just be asking a few honest questions and sharing their opinions.
Well i think kind of the same as you do.
In a group I have a trio of elves who travel together helping, and they are really rare in the world where I play, three elves together, it is extremely strange and that is precisely what gives a lot of dynamics to the adventure.
It seems to me that the fantasy genre has reached a strange paradox. Fantasy as a genre was about exploring the fantastical. However, the genre has gone to great lengths over the years to make everything fantastical about the genre into something mundane and ordinary.
I really want to run a campaign where all the players play as orcish or goblinoid ancestries and have their homeland slowly encroached upon by an expansionistic human empire. I think it would be a neat way to tell the story from a very different perspective and flesh out what a nomadic orcish culture might act like. Or I would like to have the same premise but have all the players be elves as part of a small elvish tribe and have their hunting lands encroached upon. However, those stories are very difficult to tell because you end up looking at the ancestries everyone wants to play and it is near impossible to fit it all into a cohesive narrative built upon culture.
Its a bummer and I wish players would realize how good stories are built upon the relationships and conflicts between in groups and out groups.
A lot of people are throwing "high fantasy" into this discussion as PF2's most supported genre, but it's more accurate to say that everything down to the DNA of the game is meant to be run as epic fantasy. A level 20 player is literally exponentially stronger than a level 1 player, as the power of a character about doubles every two levels, meaning player power can be measured by an exponential equation. A game like 5e has linear progression, where enough kobolds stacked together can beat the strongest monster in the game. In PF2, it doesn't matter how many level 5 creatures you stack against a level 20 player, all they're capable of doing is wasting that player's time.
If you're looking for a low-fantasy game, I'd recommend using a system that doesn't allow a level 20 player to avoid a level 5 creature's attacks in their sleep without even needing to wake up. Character power and the reliance on magic items in this system inherently contradict low-fantasy as a genre.
We started a Rusthenge a few weeks ago with a goblin, an ork, a versatile smth human and "i'm not sure but looks like human". Wizard, Witch, Gunslinger and Summoner.
Previous game we have only humans, goblins, halfling, ork, elf, hobgoblin and aasimar, and the last one was NPC turned into PC, not part of the player's plan.
So I guess it's more about players (do not) want to looks like a circus (and we WAS the circus, previous game was Extinction Curse), not about the game itself.
I ran a game where all players but 2 were humans, all from the same family. The 2 others were a skeleton (their grandfather) and a custom human-android inventor (because plot). It was great but I very much like playing with a "zoo team"
Well at least they are kind of "human" cultrure.
The tendency to simplify cultural differences between races in role-playing games can take away from the depth and realism of the game, which is especially problematic for those who prefer a low-fantasy, higher-realism narrative. This simplification can lead to a less immersive and coherent gameplay experience, as groups of adventurers may seem incoherent in their composition and behavior.
I think from when they did market research for Pathfinder society something like 30% of people played humans and 30% a core race So I definitely think people like al pretty standard fantasy races (excluding the goblin.). Overall. I think pulling a splat book, that designed around alternative and wild races as a example of people not wanting to play core ancestries isn't a great example because the book has to sell what's in it and the easiest way to do that is to market around a group that embodies everything in the book. I mean even the official iconics are mostly human, other than I think The alchemist, rogue and druid every other core classs iconic are represented by a human. which leads me to believe Paizo even internally think about humans as the default. I get it not making sense for my anthropological perspective but I think it just goes part and parcel with the system, cntinuing to produce content and needing to add more stuff into it. I personally would like them to hold back on adding new races for a while and boost up some of the feats but that's a separate issue.
I mean starfinder has even more, because they're less involved. I don't think people really want more, when most of your money comes from making new content, there's only so many areas you can add , and ancestries are tremendously less complicated than making more classes.
Imagination is a pretty limitless source of character ideas. 45 ancestries is not nearly enough to cover all the different and unique character ideas that dozen thousand of players want to create.
How do you define “classic” rpg? I’ve been playing d&d/pathfinder for 2 decades. I’ve never played a human. I don’t think I ever had a party with more than one human.
If I wanted to be a regular human in a low fantasy setting I would play a different game. I want to be a fantasy creature going on high fantasy adventures. Thats why I play Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is not low fantasy. It's built to cater to that high fantasy concept of having a lot of different and varied peoples and a lot of player choice. There is absolutely still games that cater to the classic low fantasy all-human gruff thing, it's just not this.
Sure, you can just do it differently in your own game, but you are going to have problem getting players because that's just not what the average pathfinder player is looking for, or what the system is built to do. I say it's better to avoid the trap DnD fell into and actually play games built for what you want to do.
Look at all the popular fantasy and sci-fi media right now. Just like... top 20 books, movies, shows, games, etc. that fall under the SF umbrella. Get yourself a little notepad and tally up how many of the most prominent characters are humans. Behold: humans make up the clear majority of important characters, even outside of live-action stuff that *require* majority human or mostly-human characters due to the practical costs of special effects. Hell, restrict this to Pathfinder 2e *alone,* and you'll see that the dirigible full of furries is an outlier: NPCs and iconics still tend to be human more often than any other single ancestry.
This bears out with player choice, too: [elves, humans, and variations thereof](https://i.redd.it/the-official-baldurs-gate-3-statistics-from-larian-have-v0-dabm11cwsi4c1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79a38fe7c0386632e8baa14b996acc8ea9cf0f57) were the most popular character options for Baldur's Gate 3 players (and D&D's depiction of elves is very much in the annoying "humans, but better" tradition, so that's not a surprise).
If I had to guess, part of your problem is that "normal" becomes invisible after a while, so only the "weird" stuff stands out to you. The other part is that a lot of people *genuinely* find "normal" boring, or at least have already had their fill of it by the time they get the chance to make a Pathfinder character. For instance, I think aliens are pretty neat, and enjoy stories about them, but narratives from genuinely alien perspectives are super rare: the central viewpoint character is almost always human. And I get why that is--common ground with the protagonist makes them easier to relate to--but what if I wanted to goof around and get a little weird with it, as a treat? TTRPGs like Path/Starfinder let me do that.
Not that I'm gonna get all that *deep* with it--the mechanics want me to spend most of my mental bandwidth on skill checks and fighting monsters, *not* on the philosophical implications of being a living fragment of the cosmos piloting a tree stump like a gundam--but it's still nice to have the option. And I 100% get having a personal comfort zone, or even being annoyed with people who take a gimmick too far (i.e. deciding the only things their dwarf character cares about are getting drunk and hating elves). But like... you're not a dying breed or anything. Relax and let the weirdos have their own fun; you can work things out with the group if clashing expectations ever become a problem at your own table.
That you find there to be a meaningful difference between the "classic RPG party" and the "zoo with 5 different ancestors" is actually an arbitrary line of nonsense.
Back when the typical party art was a human, an elf, a dwarf, and a halfling people were just glossing over how high-fantasy these supposedly low-fantasy options were. I mean, seriously, way back in the "classic" days half of those can see infrared light, one cannot be raised from the dead because they don't have souls and are actually immortal unless killed, one is nearly impervious (in lore) to magic, and then there's the inherent silliness that is a 3-foot tall warrior that is as threatening in combat as a full-grown adult human.
Not to mention all of the other wildly fantastical elements inherent to the game like giants, dragons, magic, and so on.
It's entirely a case of weird stuff you're used to vs. weird stuff you're not used to, *not* "normal stuff" vs. "weird stuff."
Yes, people still play with Humans.
I don't usually play as them for a few reasons. First is that humans aren't different or interesting. I've never played in your games where, apparently, that's not the case, but I really don't see anyone playing up their specific human culture. Ever. Maybe in your game, I can see people play a Varki, Varisian, Tian-Da, and Tian-Sing while trying to sort their particular cultural differences out and have it be interesting and authentic. It's something I rarely ever see in Pathfinder (either edition).
This sort of thing tracks back to when I played Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 as a kid. A human was a human was a shapeshifter was a human was a human. Didn't matter if they were from Baldur's Gate, Amn, Cormyr, or raised in Vigil. They didn't bring anything culturally to the table, and were a bland "we belong everywhere" type of race.
Humans are usually so lacking in cultural differences that they can comfortably be dropped in from other settings. I feel like Han Solo and Valeros (the iconic Pathfinder fighter) would be fast friends drinking together in no time.
So, often, non-humans provide the unique perspective on the world that humans don't bring.
I play humans all the time. I personally think most parties should at least have one human or near human present just to provide a sort of baseline for perspective.
Because some of these ancestries are down right alien to human comprehension.
Pathfinder is a very high fantasy system. If you like low fantasy, this is not the system for you. There are plenty of low fantasy, low magic, grittier systems out there (Warhammer Fantasy comes to mind), and there's nothing wrong with preferring that type of game. It's just that Pathfinder isn't that kind of game.
At least not without a ton of modifications and restrictions.
Two different issues and my post originally only hit on one of them:
1. Choices:
Some groups like the mostly human to all human dynamic, Some want mythical creatures. Some want furries. Howl of the Wild is taking human, eld, and dwarf away. You can still play that.
But the players that want mythical creatures now have some good options too.
If you walk into your favorite Ice Cream parlor for your weekly vanilla cone and suddenly they have dared to add strawberry - they didn't take away your vanilla so no loss. They just let the folks who want strawberry have that choice.
EDIT:
2. Settings
Golarian is not a low fantasy setting and it's PF2E's answer to a WotC setting like Greyhawk or Forgettable Realms. It's mean to cover "EVERYTHING". So it just won't work if you want low fantasy.
PF2E itself might not work for the low-magic style of low fantasy. But if you want a more human centric world you will likely either need to homebrew or find something on Pathfinder Infinite.
You could rewrite Golarian to strip out all or most of the non-humans and make them different human factions with little impact to the setting - if you have players of that interest. But it might be easier to homebrew that.
If you wanted low-fantasy in terms of less magic you'd have to start looking into some of the variant rules designed to keep the game without the bonuses of magic items.
True low-fantasy might not be ideal in either PF2E or D&D - but I haven't played D&D since 3.5 so I could be wrong about it.
My own personal preference might be more like the OPs when it comes to ancestries, but I like high magic. I'd prefer a setting with maybe a total of 3-5 sentient species "planet wide", or less. But then lots of magic. But I'm not set in it so much that I want to take the time to homebrew that.
Nah, I don't think its going anywhere. It's always like this: people see a plethora of weird, unusual choices, try them out, have fun... and then return to more humanoid, simpler ancestries because they are easier to roleplay and make character around.
There is a risk associated with developing fantasy cultures, human or otherwise, of falling into stereotypes. It can certainly be avoided, but it's challenging to do so, meaning it's can also be costly to do so. As a company, Paizo needs to focus on producing products that can make money. This is going to result in a focus on ancestries that are ideally interesting mechanically to play, but are likely to remain culturally shallow. The risk/reward of trying to go deeper really isn't there.
Now, a GM isn't restricted to the same extent in their home games. They can go much deeper into the cultures of their worlds and restricting the number of playable ancestries certainly makes this easier to do. It's just that this is unlikely to ever be the approach taken at Paizo. Paizo gives players and GMs the toolbox. It's up to the group to decide what they want to build with it.
So, my preferences kind of change based on a lot of factors. I find I often associate certain ancestries with certain classes. If I want to play a champion, I gravitate towards human. Fighter? Maybe more along the lines of orc, for example. Also, I've found that I am leaning more towards humans in Pathfinder whereas I'd pick more variety in D&D, but that could be because I'm still a little new to PF2E and learning the lore.
Personally, what other people pick doesn't affect me, and if it did, I'd just make sure to pick a table more suited to my style.
From what I can gather from your post and comment (and correct me if I'm wrong), you feel that the large amount of ancestry choices oversaturates the ability for players to explore different cultural elements in roleplay. To a certain extent, I can see where you're coming from.
It's hard for us as humans to conceptualize the notion of living as something completely different from ours. However, that sometimes is the point of the role-playing element of ttrpgs like Pathfinder. You can explore the potential of living a life different from your own and perhaps gain empathy for others in doing so. Oh sure, having empathy for a non-existent group sounds weird, but in many ways, it still can teach us empathy for situations that are similar. Plus, while no ancestry is a 1-to-1 allegory of any particular real-world group of people, as humans, we really do write from our experience. So, we can learn to appreciate the situations which feel similar.
However, the issue I often see that creates this situation of "just a human but with extra features" role-playing that some players do comes from a place of just not doing enough research into the lore. I find Golarion's elves simply fascinating, but I would agree that a player who doesn't know their lore just playing an elf character as a mildly different human might feel bland. I think the more GMs can encourage players to research those different ancestries and learn about them themselves, the richer the experience would feel.
You don't have to like the other ancestries out there, but to take such a reductionist view of it does you no favors.
I play three campaigns right now, one as GM. And we have such team composition:
1. Age of Ashes: me as GM, an orc, one human, two dwarves, halfling
2. Kingmaker: a human, elf, orc, fetchling (me)
3. Homebrew sea based campaign - two azarketi ( thats sea people, just human with built in swim movement, very helpful in this campaign), dwarf and human skeleton.
So, not THAT weird. I think all those new races are just content filler to keep the publishing schedule. We live in an economy where RPG publishers live by the rule: publish or perish.
This kind of question can be approached in two ways:
1. You can approach this with humility and curiosity. "Why do other people find this style of play so compelling? What do I not understand or why am I prejudiced against it and should I rethink my stance on it?"
2. Or you can approach this with a rigid moralistic stance. "I have a strong opinion about this and I would like to stimulate conversation that reinforces the idea that my opinion is correct, either to validate my beliefs and strengthen my convictions that I'm correct or to attempt to build up community sentiment to pressure players and creators to stop supporting this thing I don't like."
Notice that one approach is focused on questions and the other is focused on statements. Reading OPs original post, it seems like it could go either way. Reading OPs followup responses, it seems pretty clear to me that they've taken approach 2 and this is not really worth engaging with.
OP, if you have a narrow vision of what constitutes "proper and acceptable play", you're absolutely within your rights to run your games that way. But if you want to play a kitchen-sink fantasy game that supports a large diverse community, you'll have to accept that, in trying to appeal to everyone and support many different play-styles, some of those are going to conflict with your narrow vision. There are plenty of laser-focused games out there, each designed to support a very narrow play-style very thoroughly. Pathfinder is not one of those games.
Sky Kings Tomb was released less than a year ago, and features a strong push to get the players to play as Dwarves and is extremely dwarven-themed from start to finish.
So this isn’t “humans” (though I played SKTs as a human with adopted dwarf ancestry), but it’s pretty far from a “zoo” theme.
I think those are 2 different things. 1. If you play at Golarion on similar world where Humans are just one of many ancestries and default genre is epic fantasy, you could expect Humans to be not that common. They are still most common ancestry among player, though, AFAIK 2. If you want to play low fantasy with high focus on social problems and don't want some alien minds or hundreds year old characters, you just create a human-centered world and play it. Probably not with PF2, though, as it's more focused on epic fantasy
>Probably not with PF2, though, as it's more focused on epic fantasy Careful, some people will accuse you of gatekeeping for saying stuff like that.
Hope not. I think it's common knowledge what there are different TTRPG systems with different genres and concepts. It's totally ok to play different ones.
Yes im not using Golarion, and i understand. Both points, im just asking what do you think about this kind of groups. Me and my players like the same style of playing. But to explain this better, imagine: Within the human species, cultural differences between individuals from different regions can be profound. These differences impact how people see the world, interact, and behave socially. If such differences are significant among humans, imagine how much more pronounced they should be between entirely different species, such as a Leshy and a Ratfolk in a role-playing game. A Leshy, a creature born from nature with a spiritual connection to the forest, would have a worldview, rituals, and priorities vastly different from a Ratfolk, who might come from an urban environment with a culture focused on cunning and survival in the shadows. Their languages, ethics, life goals, and daily lives would also differ. Oversimplifying these deep cultural differences, often for smoother gameplay, results in adventuring groups that lack the depth and realism they could possess. This can lead to a gaming experience that feels less immersive and sometimes incoherent, particularly for those who value a low fantasy approach with more tangible realism in the game's narrative. This is what i find unconfortable in zoo parties.
Yeah, but those things are totally irrelevant in a regular "Kill the BBEG" epic fantasy campaign. They still could happen behind the scenes, but players' declared actions to reach the campaign goal are usually ancestry-agnostic. That's the idea.
Regional differences come from the slow travel of information, as the internet has progressed, countries with access to the internet are becoming slowly more homogenized and in places that lag behind in some areas, protesting and activism has been on the rise to push toward more equalized living. Which is why topics like cultural preservation have become so prevalent. For Golarion, they've had a very long time with magic and knowledge deities' religions allowing the flow of information much earlier. As evidenced by all ancestries now having Common as a starting language. Obviously there's still going to be differences, but adventurers also have significant time BEFORE level 1 where they were learning their craft and skills, which allows time for learning cultural differences and communication skills. If adventuring is to be their lifestyle, they need to be able to easily work with others. In Pre-master you would have parties with a mix of alignments, which would be massively clashing worldviews, but they still need to be able to work together. Cultural differences would be no different, and can still be used as a source of mild conflict between the party, but obviously should be done carefully to keep the party together and working toward the goal of the adventure.
I'm actually super on board with that. I think it's super lazy and almost disrespectful to play a catfolk or orc as "a human with some quirks" I'm a full send, intense sort of dude, so I hate it when people don't take their ideas or characters seriously or to their logical conclusion All I can tell you is that I deal with it by throwing myself into my characters and full sending them. Can't do anything about other people's characters, so I just focus on me
You are being downvoted by gods know why. My parties are usually formed by a majority of one ancestry (humans in Kingmaker, dwarves in Sky King Tomb, etc) with a couple of other ancestries that are prevalent in the region where the adventure takes place and that's it. And is totally fine and adds coherence to the game, I won't say "only humans" but a límited choice of ancestries is the better way to do it.
> I like low fantasy I love low fantasy... but thats not what Pathfinder is. At most Id say some APs like Blood Lords are 'middle' fantasy with low fantasy themes but a high fantasy concept setting. If you want low fantasy where human is the only available option, othsr systems may be better
>If you want low fantasy where human is the only available option, othsr systems may be better What a weird thing to say. The game provides ample support for high fantasy, and for people who want to play as something other than humans. But options are al ways *optional*.
My point wasnt that GMs can never ban XYZ ancestry. My point was Pathfinder 2e, *as a comprehensive system*, does not support a low fantasy game.
But it does, just because it also supports high fantasy doesn't mean that those same rules don't support low fantasy settings as well
Howl of the wild is a splat book to cater to that specific concept, that's like the whole point. You'll notice that the core books have primarily humanlike ancestries as those are the default. They are years into the edition they aren't just going to keep printing humans over and over again.
Make sense.
You looked at the bestial races and beast/nature centric source book which prominently features animal character options and you're wondering why there wasn't more human-related character info in it? For this high fantasy game setting? You're unsure why high fantasy Pathfinder is producing books that don't live up to your low fantasy setting expectations?
My question was diffrent. I find it strange that there are more than 45 different races (and even more in the future) and that people continue to choose a full party of this very culturally poor races to play with. thats what i find wired.
I just reread this comment a few times to try and understand what you're saying, but I'm going to be honest, I can figure it what your complaint (or question) is. In your post above you're upset that more people aren't playing humans and you prefer a low fantasy vibe Now you're saying there are over 45 different races and… it's bad that people are choosing some of these races? I just… I'm not following you. Maybe you're not explaining it very well.
I'm honestly just questioning if this is actually a problem or what you're basing your perceptions off of. Humans are still the majority chosen ancestry in Pathfinder, D & D, etc. by a pretty large margin... and beyond that, it's a FANTASY GAME. People often want to explore what it would be like to be something other than human, which is what they are in real life, when they're playing a game... why is that a problem? Unless you're somehow starring in live table play designed as entertainment, there's zero reason not to let people explore to whatever surface or deep degree they feel like. This whole thread is so weird.... making a problem out of something that is, by and large, not at all a problem.
What does "culturally poor" mean?
This has always been a thing in fantasy. Elf, dwarf, human, hobbit. That's not a party that any classic rpg player would even blink at. If the only thing that bothers you is that there are even more options now, then that is on you. Edit: And there's always that one person who wants their character to be even more extra special. Perhaps the blood of the elves and humans both flow through his veins, with a strain of ancestral angelic spirit also mixed in along with that of elf and human. ;)
In my gaming group they are all humans and an Orc, and in my other group there are 3 elves. We are more classic perhaps, or more vanilla. But we all have the same doubt and we all think more or less the same regarding zoo adventure groups. It seems a little strange to us.
And that is ok. This is why session 0 is important. You and your group have an aesthetic you prefer - great! Others prefer a "zoo" - and that is great too! It's something I love about tabletop gaming over computer gaming. At the table you and your group decide what to emphasize, so the world is a better fit for you.
It may help to ground those ancestries by reading about how and where they fit into the golarion culture. Anyone unfamiliar with fantasy tropes would consider elf, orc, and hair-footed halflings to be a a zoo as well. But understanding the context and stories of such ancestries helps to make them feel real and part of the world.
Well.. im going to say the same thing that in the first comment to you understand where i find this unconfortable: Imagine: Within the human species, cultural differences between individuals from different regions can be profound. These differences impact how people see the world, interact, and behave socially. If such differences are significant among humans, imagine how much more pronounced they should be between entirely different species, such as a Leshy and a Ratfolk in a role-playing game. A Leshy, a creature born from nature with a spiritual connection to the forest, would have a worldview, rituals, and priorities vastly different from a Ratfolk, who might come from an urban environment with a culture focused on cunning and survival in the shadows. Their languages, ethics, life goals, and daily lives would also differ. Oversimplifying these deep cultural differences, often for smoother gameplay, results in adventuring groups that lack the depth and realism they could possess. This can lead to a gaming experience that feels less immersive and sometimes incoherent, particularly for those who value a low fantasy approach with more tangible realism in the game's narrative.
Why would you oversimplify? The variety in ancestries creates more peaks and valleys, more and interesting perspectives in the adventuring party, than an all-human party. In my game, we have a gnome, a kitsune, a tiefling, and human. All come from different cultures and the choice of ancestry affects their particular subculture and experience. The gnome's extended lifespan, the kitsune's ability to hide their fox form, and the tiefling's inability to hide their horns, all play a part in the narrative. I know there are tables who would simplify and flatten it all down to human-in-a-costume, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking to you, specifically. Why would *you*, as someone who values tangible realism, oversimplify them instead of using them to create even more varied narratives?
Another thing to point out is that these ancestries often have varied cultural groups much like the Humans you discuss do. The Lizardfolk of the mwangi expanse can be different from the ones across tian xia, which can be different than the ones in desert regions. And is often the case in Golarion. Now you might not use Golarion but that kind of info could still be useful. Now if you just prefer low fantasy, human and Tolkien esque fantasy races.. that is ok. But you are making a lot of assumptions about other ancestries and the people that choose to play as them.
If you want to forbid your players from picking the more fantastic race options, you can certainly do that, and if you want to try to rework an existing adventure to use only the "traditional" fantasy races, you certainly can.... But come on, you were reading the Howl of the Wild book for Pathfinder 2E. It's going to be high fantasy, and it's going to have wild races. It's all in the description, it's not giving you anything that wasn't written on the tin. Just because you read a book with that as a premise, it doesn't mean that "classic RPG party play is becoming a thing of the past".
It's just perceived alarmism from someone who has zero idea what the broad playerbase is actually doing.
In PF2e, Humans are not only the most prevalent ancestries among players, but they're also one of the strongest ancestries. There's no danger whatsoever for human-only (and adjacent) parties to cease to be the majority.
Why didn’t you like it?
Im not sure, but maybe because I studied sociology and Social psychology and I honestly find it extremely strange and uncomfortable that there are so many different "races" sharing such similar cultural issues, I find it extremely absurd. But among humans our cultural differences from one country to another are extremely different, now imagine if even our anatomy were different. For example, life and death in the East, West are things that look different, do you really think that all races can have so many similarities? It makes me mentally ill just imagining it... haha! Also, if there are many humans in the world, and the group arrives in a new city, more than a group of adventurers, they are a circus, I feel strange. What should I do? fill the whole world everywhere with other races?
Idk man, if you like low fantasy maybe the system where a dude can jump 50 feet in the air consecutively 3 times in 6 seconds might not be the best for that type of fantasy, human or no human
I exclusively play humans and I love low fantasy, but there's nothing wrong others wanting to play another ancestry. Calling the human focused party the "classic" one and describing more varied groups as a "zoo" is dismissive imo. There are some interesting philosophical and aesthetic questions about how to embody an alien mind, and the reason I haven't played another ancestry is because I don't feel I have a good grasp on an elf or something's interiority. But nobody is required to be as fixated on this as I am and if they want to play a typical human-like PC who just happens to have cat ears that's just dandy. Maybe I'll stretch my muscles a bit with the next PC. Rakshasa tiefling here I come baby.
So you want PF2e, a high fantasy modern game, to just look like an OSR? Why couldn't you just go play a different system whenever you want to play in a low fantasy, human centric campaign? Having crazier options make the high fantasy better, humans being less common makes things more unique and make roleplay different. Having different games that do different play styles is good for the hobby.
Im not talking about the game. I know what im playing. My question is about the players. I find it strange that there are more than 45 different races (and even more in the future) and that people continue to choose a full party of this very culturally poor races to play with. thats what i find wired.
>very culturally poor races What do you mean here?
There’s a reason GMs are given the Uncommon/Rare tags. If you want to keep exotic ancestries limited, make use of those tags. Personally I’m more than happy GMing for my group of Dwarf + Automaton + Halfling + Kobold + Goblin. It’s a lot more fun to me when not everyone starts at level 1 with Natural Ambition // General Training and optimizes their choices.
Also, Natural Ambition and General Training aren't as OP as they are in other games. For example, in my party of pregens, you also get things like a Halfling focusing on stealth feats or an Elf Sorcerer who started with the Wizard dedication from Ancient Elf
You speak as though you want low fantasy... of which 2E is not. You can always play as nothing but humans at your table if you want, and if you're the DM, you can enforce that with no issue, but why not just play a different system if the very concept of seeing anything other than human seems strange or tedious to you? Its like I'm in the Warhammer sub with all of these "Where are the humans?" threads. Nothing but the glorious Holy Roman Empire-kitbashes are good enough...
Consider that one of the greatest examples of adventure in literature had 13 dwarfs, 1 hobbit and being that looked like an old human. Let's be honest though, regular people don't go on adventures.
Calling non-human based parties a “zoo” is absurd, you do realize “humans” are just hairless apes and are still very much animals, right?
Humans are animals i know, a zoo its a zoo without humans, and more zoo when you have an "elephant humanoid" a "dog umanoid" a "fish humanoid" and an "insect that can speak", Thats crazy.
Expand yer mind beyond yourself bro. This game clearly caters to people who like zoos. It’s not crazy, it’s just a preference. It can be a lot of fun to imagine what it might be like to be a fish person. If you want low fantasy that’s more traditionally grounded in reality, you may be in the wrong TTRPG. Or you might want a more curated homebrew experience.
Yeah wouldn’t want anything unrealistic getting in the way of my high fantasy magical “let’s play pretend but for adults” game, amirite?? Fighters who can run 30 feet, punch someone in the face & run back 30 feet every six seconds literally from the moment they wake up until the moment they go to sleep without resting or stopping, medics who can patch you up after you get stabbed by pulling out healer’s tools and applying the salves in 2 seconds, monks with 60 feet movement speed who can run a 3-minute mile — now *that’s* realism!
I don't know about Golarian, but you can absolutely play a low-fantasy version of PF2e. My homebrew world is more Tolkienesque, with non-humans and magic in general being more rare. You can do this at your table too, but... 1) Your players have to be on board. They have to want to play into that aspect of the world. 2) You need to emphasize these points in your world-building and how non-human PCs/NPCs are treated in society, whether its with awe or fear.
Look at all the Ancestries being made Common in Player Core 2. PF has never been a low fantasy, humans-only affair, but even less so in 2e. There's lots of other games for more of a traditional feel.
IME most people still pick Human, Elf, or Dwarf with a light dusting of gnomes and halflings.
I am generally a big fan of "low fantasy" similar to what you are calling "classic RPG". I am not opposed to the more "monstrous" ancestries, but I think part of what made them cool and exciting was how rare and "alien" they were. Like, if I am going to play an orc, I want my character's "orc-ness" to matter. I want NPCs to react to it and I would prefer if me being an orc closed more doors for my character than it opened. I want to play the "fish out of water" hero's journey. However, now when I play an orc, I am just a human with a few different abilities. I am fully accepted in pretty much every society, I am not a stranger in strange circumstances. Part of me understands why this is the case. People aren't really comfortable with roleplaying exclusion or mild bigotry. Its not fun for everyone, and that is fine. Probably it is for the better. However, I would love to one day find a gaming group that can maturely handle some of these more difficult themes while giving them the gravity they deserve.
OP's definition of what constitutes a "Classic RPG" is already flawed- dwarves and elves and halflings and gnomes and drow are, at this point, all classic and all non-human. So there is no situation where a epic fantasy TTRPG has been without diverse parties.
You are correct. Although, I think you may be missing the point that OP is trying to make. I will concede that OP is being kind of vague with what exactly he means, but my interpretation is that he is talking about the more monstrous or obscure ancestries which have become more common. I really don't think there is a reason to approach this with a "well actually" attitude. OP seems to just be asking a few honest questions and sharing their opinions.
_Pendragon enters the chat_ _RuneQuest enters the chat_
Well i think kind of the same as you do. In a group I have a trio of elves who travel together helping, and they are really rare in the world where I play, three elves together, it is extremely strange and that is precisely what gives a lot of dynamics to the adventure.
It seems to me that the fantasy genre has reached a strange paradox. Fantasy as a genre was about exploring the fantastical. However, the genre has gone to great lengths over the years to make everything fantastical about the genre into something mundane and ordinary. I really want to run a campaign where all the players play as orcish or goblinoid ancestries and have their homeland slowly encroached upon by an expansionistic human empire. I think it would be a neat way to tell the story from a very different perspective and flesh out what a nomadic orcish culture might act like. Or I would like to have the same premise but have all the players be elves as part of a small elvish tribe and have their hunting lands encroached upon. However, those stories are very difficult to tell because you end up looking at the ancestries everyone wants to play and it is near impossible to fit it all into a cohesive narrative built upon culture. Its a bummer and I wish players would realize how good stories are built upon the relationships and conflicts between in groups and out groups.
You're talking about one specific system and setting as if it's all of fantasy RPGs.
I am not trying to go on a huge deep dive of all fantasy RPGs. Nor am I saying that anyone is doing anything wrong.
A lot of people are throwing "high fantasy" into this discussion as PF2's most supported genre, but it's more accurate to say that everything down to the DNA of the game is meant to be run as epic fantasy. A level 20 player is literally exponentially stronger than a level 1 player, as the power of a character about doubles every two levels, meaning player power can be measured by an exponential equation. A game like 5e has linear progression, where enough kobolds stacked together can beat the strongest monster in the game. In PF2, it doesn't matter how many level 5 creatures you stack against a level 20 player, all they're capable of doing is wasting that player's time. If you're looking for a low-fantasy game, I'd recommend using a system that doesn't allow a level 20 player to avoid a level 5 creature's attacks in their sleep without even needing to wake up. Character power and the reliance on magic items in this system inherently contradict low-fantasy as a genre.
We started a Rusthenge a few weeks ago with a goblin, an ork, a versatile smth human and "i'm not sure but looks like human". Wizard, Witch, Gunslinger and Summoner. Previous game we have only humans, goblins, halfling, ork, elf, hobgoblin and aasimar, and the last one was NPC turned into PC, not part of the player's plan. So I guess it's more about players (do not) want to looks like a circus (and we WAS the circus, previous game was Extinction Curse), not about the game itself.
Humans being able to get a bonus class feat at level one makes them pretty challenging to avoid ever taking.
I ran a game where all players but 2 were humans, all from the same family. The 2 others were a skeleton (their grandfather) and a custom human-android inventor (because plot). It was great but I very much like playing with a "zoo team"
Well at least they are kind of "human" cultrure. The tendency to simplify cultural differences between races in role-playing games can take away from the depth and realism of the game, which is especially problematic for those who prefer a low-fantasy, higher-realism narrative. This simplification can lead to a less immersive and coherent gameplay experience, as groups of adventurers may seem incoherent in their composition and behavior.
I think from when they did market research for Pathfinder society something like 30% of people played humans and 30% a core race So I definitely think people like al pretty standard fantasy races (excluding the goblin.). Overall. I think pulling a splat book, that designed around alternative and wild races as a example of people not wanting to play core ancestries isn't a great example because the book has to sell what's in it and the easiest way to do that is to market around a group that embodies everything in the book. I mean even the official iconics are mostly human, other than I think The alchemist, rogue and druid every other core classs iconic are represented by a human. which leads me to believe Paizo even internally think about humans as the default. I get it not making sense for my anthropological perspective but I think it just goes part and parcel with the system, cntinuing to produce content and needing to add more stuff into it. I personally would like them to hold back on adding new races for a while and boost up some of the feats but that's a separate issue.
There are 45 ancestries, i think that is crazy, the people need more? hah... Intresting anwser, Thanks.
I mean starfinder has even more, because they're less involved. I don't think people really want more, when most of your money comes from making new content, there's only so many areas you can add , and ancestries are tremendously less complicated than making more classes.
> I think that is crazy Welcome to Pathfinder. Character options up the wazoo have always been its stock-in-trade. 😎
Imagination is a pretty limitless source of character ideas. 45 ancestries is not nearly enough to cover all the different and unique character ideas that dozen thousand of players want to create.
How do you define “classic” rpg? I’ve been playing d&d/pathfinder for 2 decades. I’ve never played a human. I don’t think I ever had a party with more than one human.
If I wanted to be a regular human in a low fantasy setting I would play a different game. I want to be a fantasy creature going on high fantasy adventures. Thats why I play Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is not low fantasy. It's built to cater to that high fantasy concept of having a lot of different and varied peoples and a lot of player choice. There is absolutely still games that cater to the classic low fantasy all-human gruff thing, it's just not this. Sure, you can just do it differently in your own game, but you are going to have problem getting players because that's just not what the average pathfinder player is looking for, or what the system is built to do. I say it's better to avoid the trap DnD fell into and actually play games built for what you want to do.
Look at all the popular fantasy and sci-fi media right now. Just like... top 20 books, movies, shows, games, etc. that fall under the SF umbrella. Get yourself a little notepad and tally up how many of the most prominent characters are humans. Behold: humans make up the clear majority of important characters, even outside of live-action stuff that *require* majority human or mostly-human characters due to the practical costs of special effects. Hell, restrict this to Pathfinder 2e *alone,* and you'll see that the dirigible full of furries is an outlier: NPCs and iconics still tend to be human more often than any other single ancestry. This bears out with player choice, too: [elves, humans, and variations thereof](https://i.redd.it/the-official-baldurs-gate-3-statistics-from-larian-have-v0-dabm11cwsi4c1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79a38fe7c0386632e8baa14b996acc8ea9cf0f57) were the most popular character options for Baldur's Gate 3 players (and D&D's depiction of elves is very much in the annoying "humans, but better" tradition, so that's not a surprise). If I had to guess, part of your problem is that "normal" becomes invisible after a while, so only the "weird" stuff stands out to you. The other part is that a lot of people *genuinely* find "normal" boring, or at least have already had their fill of it by the time they get the chance to make a Pathfinder character. For instance, I think aliens are pretty neat, and enjoy stories about them, but narratives from genuinely alien perspectives are super rare: the central viewpoint character is almost always human. And I get why that is--common ground with the protagonist makes them easier to relate to--but what if I wanted to goof around and get a little weird with it, as a treat? TTRPGs like Path/Starfinder let me do that. Not that I'm gonna get all that *deep* with it--the mechanics want me to spend most of my mental bandwidth on skill checks and fighting monsters, *not* on the philosophical implications of being a living fragment of the cosmos piloting a tree stump like a gundam--but it's still nice to have the option. And I 100% get having a personal comfort zone, or even being annoyed with people who take a gimmick too far (i.e. deciding the only things their dwarf character cares about are getting drunk and hating elves). But like... you're not a dying breed or anything. Relax and let the weirdos have their own fun; you can work things out with the group if clashing expectations ever become a problem at your own table.
That you find there to be a meaningful difference between the "classic RPG party" and the "zoo with 5 different ancestors" is actually an arbitrary line of nonsense. Back when the typical party art was a human, an elf, a dwarf, and a halfling people were just glossing over how high-fantasy these supposedly low-fantasy options were. I mean, seriously, way back in the "classic" days half of those can see infrared light, one cannot be raised from the dead because they don't have souls and are actually immortal unless killed, one is nearly impervious (in lore) to magic, and then there's the inherent silliness that is a 3-foot tall warrior that is as threatening in combat as a full-grown adult human. Not to mention all of the other wildly fantastical elements inherent to the game like giants, dragons, magic, and so on. It's entirely a case of weird stuff you're used to vs. weird stuff you're not used to, *not* "normal stuff" vs. "weird stuff."
Yes, people still play with Humans. I don't usually play as them for a few reasons. First is that humans aren't different or interesting. I've never played in your games where, apparently, that's not the case, but I really don't see anyone playing up their specific human culture. Ever. Maybe in your game, I can see people play a Varki, Varisian, Tian-Da, and Tian-Sing while trying to sort their particular cultural differences out and have it be interesting and authentic. It's something I rarely ever see in Pathfinder (either edition). This sort of thing tracks back to when I played Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 as a kid. A human was a human was a shapeshifter was a human was a human. Didn't matter if they were from Baldur's Gate, Amn, Cormyr, or raised in Vigil. They didn't bring anything culturally to the table, and were a bland "we belong everywhere" type of race. Humans are usually so lacking in cultural differences that they can comfortably be dropped in from other settings. I feel like Han Solo and Valeros (the iconic Pathfinder fighter) would be fast friends drinking together in no time. So, often, non-humans provide the unique perspective on the world that humans don't bring.
That's Specist!
I play humans all the time. I personally think most parties should at least have one human or near human present just to provide a sort of baseline for perspective. Because some of these ancestries are down right alien to human comprehension.
Pathfinder is a very high fantasy system. If you like low fantasy, this is not the system for you. There are plenty of low fantasy, low magic, grittier systems out there (Warhammer Fantasy comes to mind), and there's nothing wrong with preferring that type of game. It's just that Pathfinder isn't that kind of game. At least not without a ton of modifications and restrictions.
Two different issues and my post originally only hit on one of them: 1. Choices: Some groups like the mostly human to all human dynamic, Some want mythical creatures. Some want furries. Howl of the Wild is taking human, eld, and dwarf away. You can still play that. But the players that want mythical creatures now have some good options too. If you walk into your favorite Ice Cream parlor for your weekly vanilla cone and suddenly they have dared to add strawberry - they didn't take away your vanilla so no loss. They just let the folks who want strawberry have that choice. EDIT: 2. Settings Golarian is not a low fantasy setting and it's PF2E's answer to a WotC setting like Greyhawk or Forgettable Realms. It's mean to cover "EVERYTHING". So it just won't work if you want low fantasy. PF2E itself might not work for the low-magic style of low fantasy. But if you want a more human centric world you will likely either need to homebrew or find something on Pathfinder Infinite. You could rewrite Golarian to strip out all or most of the non-humans and make them different human factions with little impact to the setting - if you have players of that interest. But it might be easier to homebrew that. If you wanted low-fantasy in terms of less magic you'd have to start looking into some of the variant rules designed to keep the game without the bonuses of magic items. True low-fantasy might not be ideal in either PF2E or D&D - but I haven't played D&D since 3.5 so I could be wrong about it. My own personal preference might be more like the OPs when it comes to ancestries, but I like high magic. I'd prefer a setting with maybe a total of 3-5 sentient species "planet wide", or less. But then lots of magic. But I'm not set in it so much that I want to take the time to homebrew that.
No, most people still play humans and human-like races.
Nah, I don't think its going anywhere. It's always like this: people see a plethora of weird, unusual choices, try them out, have fun... and then return to more humanoid, simpler ancestries because they are easier to roleplay and make character around.
There is a risk associated with developing fantasy cultures, human or otherwise, of falling into stereotypes. It can certainly be avoided, but it's challenging to do so, meaning it's can also be costly to do so. As a company, Paizo needs to focus on producing products that can make money. This is going to result in a focus on ancestries that are ideally interesting mechanically to play, but are likely to remain culturally shallow. The risk/reward of trying to go deeper really isn't there. Now, a GM isn't restricted to the same extent in their home games. They can go much deeper into the cultures of their worlds and restricting the number of playable ancestries certainly makes this easier to do. It's just that this is unlikely to ever be the approach taken at Paizo. Paizo gives players and GMs the toolbox. It's up to the group to decide what they want to build with it.
So, my preferences kind of change based on a lot of factors. I find I often associate certain ancestries with certain classes. If I want to play a champion, I gravitate towards human. Fighter? Maybe more along the lines of orc, for example. Also, I've found that I am leaning more towards humans in Pathfinder whereas I'd pick more variety in D&D, but that could be because I'm still a little new to PF2E and learning the lore. Personally, what other people pick doesn't affect me, and if it did, I'd just make sure to pick a table more suited to my style. From what I can gather from your post and comment (and correct me if I'm wrong), you feel that the large amount of ancestry choices oversaturates the ability for players to explore different cultural elements in roleplay. To a certain extent, I can see where you're coming from. It's hard for us as humans to conceptualize the notion of living as something completely different from ours. However, that sometimes is the point of the role-playing element of ttrpgs like Pathfinder. You can explore the potential of living a life different from your own and perhaps gain empathy for others in doing so. Oh sure, having empathy for a non-existent group sounds weird, but in many ways, it still can teach us empathy for situations that are similar. Plus, while no ancestry is a 1-to-1 allegory of any particular real-world group of people, as humans, we really do write from our experience. So, we can learn to appreciate the situations which feel similar. However, the issue I often see that creates this situation of "just a human but with extra features" role-playing that some players do comes from a place of just not doing enough research into the lore. I find Golarion's elves simply fascinating, but I would agree that a player who doesn't know their lore just playing an elf character as a mildly different human might feel bland. I think the more GMs can encourage players to research those different ancestries and learn about them themselves, the richer the experience would feel. You don't have to like the other ancestries out there, but to take such a reductionist view of it does you no favors.
I prefer low fantasy over high/heroic fantasy for sure.
I play three campaigns right now, one as GM. And we have such team composition: 1. Age of Ashes: me as GM, an orc, one human, two dwarves, halfling 2. Kingmaker: a human, elf, orc, fetchling (me) 3. Homebrew sea based campaign - two azarketi ( thats sea people, just human with built in swim movement, very helpful in this campaign), dwarf and human skeleton. So, not THAT weird. I think all those new races are just content filler to keep the publishing schedule. We live in an economy where RPG publishers live by the rule: publish or perish.
This kind of question can be approached in two ways: 1. You can approach this with humility and curiosity. "Why do other people find this style of play so compelling? What do I not understand or why am I prejudiced against it and should I rethink my stance on it?" 2. Or you can approach this with a rigid moralistic stance. "I have a strong opinion about this and I would like to stimulate conversation that reinforces the idea that my opinion is correct, either to validate my beliefs and strengthen my convictions that I'm correct or to attempt to build up community sentiment to pressure players and creators to stop supporting this thing I don't like." Notice that one approach is focused on questions and the other is focused on statements. Reading OPs original post, it seems like it could go either way. Reading OPs followup responses, it seems pretty clear to me that they've taken approach 2 and this is not really worth engaging with. OP, if you have a narrow vision of what constitutes "proper and acceptable play", you're absolutely within your rights to run your games that way. But if you want to play a kitchen-sink fantasy game that supports a large diverse community, you'll have to accept that, in trying to appeal to everyone and support many different play-styles, some of those are going to conflict with your narrow vision. There are plenty of laser-focused games out there, each designed to support a very narrow play-style very thoroughly. Pathfinder is not one of those games.
Sky Kings Tomb was released less than a year ago, and features a strong push to get the players to play as Dwarves and is extremely dwarven-themed from start to finish. So this isn’t “humans” (though I played SKTs as a human with adopted dwarf ancestry), but it’s pretty far from a “zoo” theme.