Settings where humans not dominant
- Thread starter Afrodyte
- Start date
demiurge1138
Inventor of Super-Toast
Well, my prehistoric setting counts, although it might not be what you're looking for, exactly. It was set in a fantasy Cretaceous Period analog, with predominately reptilian races; the token race of mammals were ratmen evolved by the racial-mad-scientist Ophidians as an experiment.
The dominant empires were of kobolds and troglodytes, which had a Law vs. Chaos cold war encompassing the planet. Lizardfolk, bullywugs, thri-kreen and sentient dinosaurs were all minor power players, with a large island of good-aligned triceratops men, saltwater newts and crab-people ret-conned in to provide a force of good alignment in the world.
Demiurge out.
The dominant empires were of kobolds and troglodytes, which had a Law vs. Chaos cold war encompassing the planet. Lizardfolk, bullywugs, thri-kreen and sentient dinosaurs were all minor power players, with a large island of good-aligned triceratops men, saltwater newts and crab-people ret-conned in to provide a force of good alignment in the world.
Demiurge out.
Most of the ones I've seen are homebrewed.
However, there are some exceptions. One could argue, for instance, that despite being in decline, the Melniboneans are still the dominant race in the various incarnations of the Stormbringer RPGs- they are simply so much more powerful in magic than humans that only their own disinterest in the broader world is keeping them in check. Humans control more of the world's surface, but you get the feeling that if the Melniboneans really wanted it back, they could take it.
Among the homebrews, I've seen some that are set in a quasi-Silmarillion type world, in which Elves and/or Dwarves are the dominant race(s), with humans being johnny-come-lateleys just beginning to etch out a place in the world full of more powerful creatures- kind of a FRPG version of manifest destiny.
If you're asking this question to figure out how to find or design one of your own, let me give you a piece of advice I learned from polling my players and ENWorld some time ago: Its OK if humans aren't dominant, but generally speaking, you will lose players if humans are entirely absent from your setting. Unless you're playing something like Toon or something based on a setting like Watership down, the complete absence of humans will turn some people off.
However, there are some exceptions. One could argue, for instance, that despite being in decline, the Melniboneans are still the dominant race in the various incarnations of the Stormbringer RPGs- they are simply so much more powerful in magic than humans that only their own disinterest in the broader world is keeping them in check. Humans control more of the world's surface, but you get the feeling that if the Melniboneans really wanted it back, they could take it.
Among the homebrews, I've seen some that are set in a quasi-Silmarillion type world, in which Elves and/or Dwarves are the dominant race(s), with humans being johnny-come-lateleys just beginning to etch out a place in the world full of more powerful creatures- kind of a FRPG version of manifest destiny.
If you're asking this question to figure out how to find or design one of your own, let me give you a piece of advice I learned from polling my players and ENWorld some time ago: Its OK if humans aren't dominant, but generally speaking, you will lose players if humans are entirely absent from your setting. Unless you're playing something like Toon or something based on a setting like Watership down, the complete absence of humans will turn some people off.
Last edited:
demiurge1138
Inventor of Super-Toast
Also, Eberron may seem to be human-dominated, but that's just because they control the continent that receives the most focus. Araeni is controlled by the elves. Xen'drik isn't controlled by anyone in particular, but the giants and drow all make fairly convincing cases. Argonessen is controlled by the dragons. Sarlona has a large human population, but is run by the genetically-modified dream-spirit-possessed Inspired. And even in Khorvaire, traces of the continent's legacy appear all over the place; all of the really important stuff in the distant past was accomplished by demons and coatls, goblinoids and orcs.
Demiurge out.
Demiurge out.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
A bit of a rant is forthcoming. I apologize, though this touches on one of my biggest pet peeves in game/setting design. Probably the biggest one, actually. . .
Several D&D settings say that humans are dominant, though they do a poor job of living up to that claim. For example, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft are both good examples of settings where demi-humans and supernatural creatures are just as commonplace as (if not moreso than) humans, despite claims to the contrary in the sourcebooks themselves.
How likely is is that you'll not run into several demi-humans or other 'monstrous' races during the course of a given FR or Ravenloft official adventure, novel, or video game? Not very likely at all. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a single such product that isn't brimming with multiple examples of both. The truth is that dem-humans and monsters are the bread and butter of both settings, despite claims of being about humanity.
It's easy to manufacture figures (i.e., population percentages) that name humans as a setting's dominant race, though if countless reams of published setting detail don't back those figures up, they're absolutely worthless. To be fair, not all D&D settings suffer from this discrepancy (e.g., Greyhawk is, for example, primarily populated by humans and the source material never strays far from that claim), nor is the issue unique to D&D (several older White Wolf products also suffer from the same failure to support cited population figures in actual practice).
All the same, being promised one thing and then having mountains of supplements fly in the face of that thing, utterly failing to back it up is a huge pet peeve of mine. If designers say that some setting is human-centric or tell me that monsters and demi-humans are rare, I full well expect them to back that up. I suppose that's why I like Harnworld so much, as it is one of the few fantasy settings I've read that makes these claims and then consistently adheres to them for the entire duration of the product line.
Okay, now that I have that off my chest. . .
Overtly non-human settings (i.e., settings that boast a significant non-human population and proudly advertise this fact) are not commonplace. The default setting of Palladium Fantasy 1e certainly qualifies (it has huge swaths of the world teeming with entire cultures of changelings, dragons, dwarves, elves, troglodytes, wolfen, etc), as do settings such as Jorune and Talislanta (where standard human-ish races are a distinct minority). For d20 material, I believe that Spiros Blaak, qualifies (IIRC, most of its denizens are were-creatures).
Several D&D settings say that humans are dominant, though they do a poor job of living up to that claim. For example, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft are both good examples of settings where demi-humans and supernatural creatures are just as commonplace as (if not moreso than) humans, despite claims to the contrary in the sourcebooks themselves.
How likely is is that you'll not run into several demi-humans or other 'monstrous' races during the course of a given FR or Ravenloft official adventure, novel, or video game? Not very likely at all. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a single such product that isn't brimming with multiple examples of both. The truth is that dem-humans and monsters are the bread and butter of both settings, despite claims of being about humanity.
It's easy to manufacture figures (i.e., population percentages) that name humans as a setting's dominant race, though if countless reams of published setting detail don't back those figures up, they're absolutely worthless. To be fair, not all D&D settings suffer from this discrepancy (e.g., Greyhawk is, for example, primarily populated by humans and the source material never strays far from that claim), nor is the issue unique to D&D (several older White Wolf products also suffer from the same failure to support cited population figures in actual practice).
All the same, being promised one thing and then having mountains of supplements fly in the face of that thing, utterly failing to back it up is a huge pet peeve of mine. If designers say that some setting is human-centric or tell me that monsters and demi-humans are rare, I full well expect them to back that up. I suppose that's why I like Harnworld so much, as it is one of the few fantasy settings I've read that makes these claims and then consistently adheres to them for the entire duration of the product line.
Okay, now that I have that off my chest. . .
Overtly non-human settings (i.e., settings that boast a significant non-human population and proudly advertise this fact) are not commonplace. The default setting of Palladium Fantasy 1e certainly qualifies (it has huge swaths of the world teeming with entire cultures of changelings, dragons, dwarves, elves, troglodytes, wolfen, etc), as do settings such as Jorune and Talislanta (where standard human-ish races are a distinct minority). For d20 material, I believe that Spiros Blaak, qualifies (IIRC, most of its denizens are were-creatures).
Last edited:
Aus_Snow
First Post
The only time I ran 'Forgotten Realms', quote marks intended, it was really more like survival horror than traditional RPG fantasy. Humans (and most humanoids) were in the minority, and generally more vulnerable than the. . . things out there, to boot.
I don't think it's particularly hard to adjust the numbers, and anything else you want to, with most settings. Sure, some are heavily humanocentric in their fundamental themes or whatever. But yeah, most? Not so much.
Back to the actual question directly, was Talislanta non-humanocentric? I got that impression, but I don't know for sure.
I don't think it's particularly hard to adjust the numbers, and anything else you want to, with most settings. Sure, some are heavily humanocentric in their fundamental themes or whatever. But yeah, most? Not so much.
Back to the actual question directly, was Talislanta non-humanocentric? I got that impression, but I don't know for sure.
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
The campaign I'm currently working off-and-on is set after a Sauron-like character wins (taking a page from FFG's Midnight). The dominant evil race are the tieflings, who were once human but have been corrupted. In the shattered remnants of civilization, dwarves have taken the lead in rebuilding.
Oathbound has humans as a slight majority but since there are several thousand races, that doesn't mean much.
Mars unless you consider the red martains human.
In Gamma World, mutants of all kinds outnumber pure strain humans.
Spelljammer- humans were small fry in wildspace for a long time. Goblins, orcs, kobolds and elves were the major powers. It has only been the last 200 years that things have started to change.
Call of Cthulhu has humans as numerically dominate, but the other races are much more powerful.
Spirosblaak is human dominate, but only because the death toll has been staggering for the therianthropes.
It has been a long time since I read Midnight- are orcs more dominate than humans?
Mars unless you consider the red martains human.
In Gamma World, mutants of all kinds outnumber pure strain humans.
Spelljammer- humans were small fry in wildspace for a long time. Goblins, orcs, kobolds and elves were the major powers. It has only been the last 200 years that things have started to change.
Call of Cthulhu has humans as numerically dominate, but the other races are much more powerful.
Spirosblaak is human dominate, but only because the death toll has been staggering for the therianthropes.
It has been a long time since I read Midnight- are orcs more dominate than humans?
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
