Quote Originally Posted by MonochromeTiger View Post
"Humans with rubber foreheads" turns into something almost completely unavoidable in that regard unless you're actively trying to make something as far from human as possible but even then human appearance and behavior are the reference point you're working from. End results simply change from "we understand them enough to relate and sympathize" to "they're intentionally vague to the point of being furniture that occasionally does something to advance the story or present a challenge." We've effectively monopolized so many possible things as "human things to do" that almost any act will result in someone attributing a motive or emotion to it whether one is there or not.

The Redwall example is sort of a case of this. Yes there's no human character as a point of reference but all the emotions and motives are still shown from a very human lens. Yes, animals have emotions, but the way they're portrayed is still from how we (or more accurately how the author in particular) views those emotions rather than taking the time to piece together the actual meaning behind their behavior. It's why in most fiction with animal characters you get things like cats always being portrayed as aloof and cruel when they just don't socialize in the same way we do or why many wolves are still portrayed as having a dominance based pack structure instead of a familial one.
I can't imagine how we would approach emotion and characterization from anything other than a human lens, primarily because as a whole I don't think we have any more than the most tenuous handle on human emotion. Stretching it into other species or undefined entities is just beyond most anyone without some sort of hallmark. I mean, even the two animal examples you point out still present in reference to human basis, right?

Additionally, a drive of role playing seems to be to explore things in our lives with some detachment, allowing us to learn and experience without having to actually transit the situations presented. If that poorly worded motivation is accurate, we need some kind of grounding to express, empathize, experience or enjoy. Maybe it becomes a question of what percentage overlap is necessary to allow the average gamer to "relate" enough to make the characterization something more than interacting with mechanics?

Though it was a long time ago, I believe Star Frontiers, despite its simplicity, existence in the stone ages of mass market RPGs lacking the erudite designers that have blossomed in the years since and brought so much more thought and meaning to our hobby (okay, some sarcasm there), did seem to handle the step away from rubber foreheads better than most modern games. I remember very engaging non-mammal races...though they still presented some humanoid components, even my favorite amoebafolk. But maybe it was just a more innocent time and we were less concerned with mechanical differences representing some unpleasant statement about the rule world, or being everything to everyone.

- M