Humans are a must?

[SpiralBound]

This post is prompted by a comment a friend once made that I've never fully believed. He said that a setting (whether for rpgs, a movie or a novel) MUST have humans present. It can have all kinds of other races and oddities, but without the presence of at least one human or human-equivalent character, the people who view/read/interact with this system won't have a baseline of comparison and thus will be unable to relate fully to the setting. Not being able to relate to a setting means that they won't understand, care or be as interested by the setting, thus making a setting without a human to act as a guide or "perspective bridge" will end up being a failure.

I call BS on this theory. Sure, some people would feel more comfortable or have an easier time with a setting if they can perceive a human perspective within the setting, but I find it hard to accept that nearly everyone would fall into this category. Surely, "the human condition" doesn't require a 100% human baseline to be present before one could emotionally or intellectually relate to the rest of a setting.

What do others think? Would you run or play in a setting with no humans? Would you find a setting that didn't include a human or human-equivalent mental perspective difficult to relate to? If so, why? Why would one require the human baseline to begin their understanding from?

 

[Aus_Snow]

What do others think?

Well first of all, I concur.

Would you run or play in a setting with no humans?

Yes, any time.

Would you find a setting that didn't include a human or human-equivalent mental perspective difficult to relate to?

No, or at least not past the point of this being an interesting and exciting challenge.

If so, why? Why would one require the human baseline to begin their understanding from?

I have often wondered the same thing, of others. Of course, to each their own. But really, I can't see what the problem is either.

 

[Afrodyte]

SpiralBound:

I suppose the person who said a setting needs humans has never heard of "The Dark Crystal" or Care Bears or even watched Meerkat Manor.

 

[SpiralBound]

SpiralBound:

I suppose the person who said a setting needs humans has never heard of "The Dark Crystal" or Care Bears or even watched Meerkat Manor.

I did bring up the example of "The Dark Crystal", (Which I love and can't wait for the sequel in 2008!), to which my friend countered that there were human-equivalents in that settings. The Gelflings and Podlings in his view were really just humans with different names. Their viewpoints and mental abilities were sufficiently human that they "filled the gap" by not having actual humans.

I pointed out the wings on female gelflings and he said that this was a very minor thing. It wasn't even fully explored and had NO effect on the Gelfling psychology - it was more of a plot element (how do we escape the Garthim when we're on the edge of a cliff?) than an actual difference in the race. He then went on ad nauseum about settings like Star Trek where all the different races aren't really alien - they're all just exaggerated portrayals of specific aspects of humanity. This is when he sequeways into a discourse on how as humans who have never really interacted with actual aliens, we're literally incapable of "truly" portraying an alien perspective and that if we were, then we would need the human perspective to be present in such a setting all the more to aide the reader/viewer in comprehending the setting. I didn't even bother mentioning the movie "Enemy Mine" which I felt DID have an alien race with a non-human mental outlook - he would have just locked onto the human characters to use it as an example which "proved his point".

 

[Barak]

I happen to agree with your friend.

How are non-human races described?

Dwarves: They're short, stout, greedy, love beer to excess but are very industrious. They live underground, and even their females have beards! (I know, I know. That only describes -one- type of dwarves, and they aren't like that in all settings. Just bear with me here).

Klingons: Extremely warlike and combative, Pretty tall and beefy on average, ridged cranium.

And the list goes on. The point is that they are all described from the human point-of-view, mostly by listing how different from humans they are. Are dwarves really short and stout? To a human, sure. To a gnome?

Some books avoid that "trap" to a degree, listing actual height and describing body types in greater details instead of "short and stout". But since the writers and the readers are humans, in virtually every case, to some degree, they'll be compared.

And I think that it's important to have a good frame of reference to compare the "aliens" to. The easiest, and, more importantly, best way to do that, I believe, is to include something familiar to the reader that the race in question is compared to. What's the best way to drive the point home that dwarves are short? It's to have humans, or a race of people the same height as humans, around.

 

[Nifft]

I think the real trouble is the market place.

Most consumers are human.

-- N

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Barak? so no dark crystal?

 

[GrimGent]

I suppose the person who said a setting needs humans has never heard of "The Dark Crystal" or Care Bears or even watched Meerkat Manor.

Or played Bunnies & Burrows, for that matter.

 

[thundershot]

I've currently been testing a non-human environment in my campaign. Beyond the ocean to the south has been a veil of mists from which no ship has returned. The party was caught up in a storm that caused them to enter the mists... and they ended up in my version of "Dinopirates on Ninja Island... and monkeys and robots!" A chain of hidden islands that for their own empire, but there are NO HUMANS. There are also none of the other common races either (or most of the common classes), so when my group encountered them for the first time, they had no idea what humans were and treated them as monsters. The core race is Vanara, with various Dinofolk (until I come up with a more creative name, but they're dinosaurs with the anthro template from Advanced Bestiary) and Warforged. One of the core classes is the Artificer, and firearms are common. It was fun and definitely a culture shock on both sides... They ended up returning home in an airship (also unheard of in the mian land)... though they haven't found out why they're the only ones to return yet...

I'm sure they'll be going back there because of a few plot hooks I left them, and eventually, I want to START a 1st level group based on the islands..

But yeah, no humans... it was weird, but it worked, I think.


Chris

 

[Delta]

Your friend has a point. Yes, you can make or find exceptions. But the fact is, most successful franchises have humans as a base culture. Similarly, most popular fiction based in another country tends to have at least one American character, also for "bridge" purposes. Even if everyone on this fantasy-based forum would be happy to ditch humans, we are the opposite of a representative sample.

Star Trek or Enemy Mine are (imo) weak examples of aliens-as-humanoid portrayals. Good examples would be: H.P. Lovecraft's "Cthulhu" stories. Isaaac Asimov's "The Gods Themselves". Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game", or John Steakley's "Armor".