Human Dominance

[Quasqueton]

Actually, I was asking for in-game reasons. But I didn't exactly say that, and the out-of-game answers have been interesting too.

Quasqueton

 

[fusangite]

Actually, I was asking for in-game reasons. But I didn't exactly say that, and the out-of-game answers have been interesting too.

Quasqueton

This depends on how you think biology works in D&D. Unless you think things like natural selection apply to D&D, this is almost a non-question. Because, biology and ecology as we understand them clearly do not function in D&D, the physics of the game world are almost certain to involve high levels of intentionality.

Races that are successful in D&D must therefore be those races that are especially favoured by God, the gods or some other divinely-ordained order because there is no credible ecological reason they would be that much more successful.

 

[LeapingShark]

Are humans the most dominant anyway? Or would something else be at the top of the food chain (aka the treasure chain), like Dragons, Beholders, Giants, etc.

Or do you mean most populous? And just sorted by "intelligent" species?

 

[Wolf72]

humans are the ones who can advance unlimited levels in AD&D

all that sprouting words for this!

... anyway, in 1e Humans were the only ones who had unlimited level advancement ... they could keep going and going. iirc only the thief class was unlimited for demihumans (1/2-elves also had another one ... I think). ...

I think the highest lvl a demihuman could get was 11th lvl magic-user for elves (the original Unearthed Arcana bumped the levels up some depending on some very harsh (even by 3x reckoning) ability requirements.)

 

[Nisarg]

Because the human race has a stupid conception of its own indomitability, which shows up in its popular fiction, its political propaganda, and its sociopolitical and socioeconomic policies. Even in its religion, as most tend to have as part of their mythology that the entire universe was created especially for us, and in some cases that we on earth were literally the center of the universe.
It also shows up in our role playing games. Even in games where humans aren't the top dogs (like Midnight, for ex) the essential premise is often that humans will pesevere through all these problems and there is a sense that inevitably there could be the happy ending as someone (the hero PCs, usually) will restore the balance and bring humanity back to its rightful position of dominance.

Its because humans are stupid and arrogant to the point of hubris, and its something that leads us in our arrogance to follow the wrong leaders (the ones who tell us "our country is number one!! its just common sense!" and drown out more intelligent men with more intelligent solutions to our problems.

In game terms I would find it most interesting to see a campaign of, say, the Forgotten realms, where all that talk of "Waterdeep" and other great cities and human realms are so much , the only surviving humans are the dales and a handful of other places most races don't want, and humanity is rightfully near extinction in a world where almost every race is vastly more powerful or vastly more prolific than they.
But humans being humans, the humans of the dales live with the myth that everything is fine and dandy, that there are humans in various lands and great human empires.
Start your player characters as young adventurers in the dales (preferrably pick people who are already familiar with FR and will assume you are playing a standard game of it) and let them start thinking that the FR is as presented in the FR campaign book.
Only after a few adventures and some horrific example of the rapid extinguishability of human settlements should the PCs realize that the Atlas of the realms part of the FR campaign book wasn't truth, it was propaganda.

Nisarg

 

[Tonguez]

IMC Gnomes are in fact the more 'numerous/dominant' race, the gnomes (favoured class Druid) are acknowledged as the Old Wise Ones at one with the Land itself and protectors of the 'Wild Places' where humans fear to tread.

The campaign however is still humanocentric because I base the PCs in Human villages and explore a theme of Humans being newly arrived settlers with an expansionist drive. Some of the tension in the game is caused when humans tresspass in the 'Wild Places' and desecrate Gnome sacred sites...

 

[Henry]

Because the human race has a stupid conception of its own indomitability, which shows up in its popular fiction, its political propaganda, and its sociopolitical and socioeconomic policies. Even in its religion, as most tend to have as part of their mythology that the entire universe was created especially for us, and in some cases that we on earth were literally the center of the universe...

"...I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance." - William Faulkner, 1950. I love that quote.

As for why man is dominant as an in-game reason, I'd say something similar. Other races tend to have a tendency to retreat or roll over and die. In most modules and game supplements it is mankind, and its allies who "think in a human way", who rise to the challenge and prevail against oppressors, whether they be Giants, Drow, or Vampires in misty domains. Occasionally you'll have other stories, like the defense of Mithril Hall, but even then it's the men and women and allied elves of Silverymoon who come to its defense.

So, looking for an in-game answer? Humanity won't shut up and quit.

 

[Crothian]

In my world they really aren't.......

 

[Desdichado]

I think fusangite's right; it's a latent Tolkienism, which in turn is an old idea expressed as "the Celtic Twilight." A sad, melancholic fatalism. Personally, I have little use for the idea in my campaigns as a prevalent theme. In fact, my current campaign has no "demihuman" races at all. And I've been tempted to run a campaign that has no humans for a change of pace from that.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

Now, if you're talking about why so many people make D&D human-centric today, I'd say that trend is changing. Look around these forums; look at Eberron, look at the FR revisions of 3E, and I think you'll find the trend is reversing

It'll be interesting to see how that translates into the Living campaign for Eberron. One of the things I found interesting about overview statistics for the Living Greyhawk campaign was that bonus-feat-and-skill-points results in a selection of PCs that pretty well represents the racial breakdown that's supposed to be true: predominantly humans, with a smattering of demi-humans. I didn't find that to be the case in 1E: I'd make human PCs out of loyalty to my own species, but suffered in comparison to everyone else as a result (since our campaigns rarely made it to the point where level caps became relevant).