The Minority of Humanity

[The Green Adam]

Various threads over the last few months on Elves, Dwarves and the other staple denizens of medieval fantasy RPGs had me thinking about how my own campaign(s) may drastically differ from those of most other GMs (so what else is new?).

In the vast majority of my games, regardless of system or genre, Humans are the minority in most of the PC groups. At one point I recall my friend Nelson wanting to play a Human in a D&D campaign "just to be different". We have read through beliefs and scenarios in which Elves have been described as a dead end culture and a species doomed to extinction. But even with the low birthrate implied by various sources, aren't there more Elves (all flavors) and Dwarves and Halflings and Gnomes combined then there are humans? Why aren't humans eradicated by the more magical and longer lived races?

As an example my last medieval fantasy campaign consisited of 2 Humans, 1 Human/Werecreature, 3 Elves, 1 Dwarf and a Catman/Shifter type.

My class Star Trek campaign featured 3 Humans, 2 Andorians, 1 Human/Orion crossbreed, 1 Vulcan and a Squid-like creature.

Star Wars tends to feature a good number of humans but usually a nearly equal number of aliens and droids. My last campaign, though short, had a PC group of 3 Humans, 1 Mon Calamari, 1 Twi'lek and 1 humanoid female alien whose species I forget.

In virtually every campaign I'm ever run where non-human species exist the number of non-humans has equalled or exceeded the number of pure strain humans Personally, as a player, I don't think I've played more then 3 human characters in 30 years of gaming.

How about you? What is your experience with this and why do you think this is? Or, have almost all your PCs been human as most campaign groups are said to be?

AD

 

[SteelDraco]

Unless part of the character's hook involves his race in some way, I'm probably going to play a human. That said, my last couple of characters haven't been human. I'm about to start a dwarf bard, simply because I wanted to see how effective I could make the character. I'm currently playing a githzerai, but that's an all-githzerai game, so it doesn't really count.

In my group, there's usually about half humans. In the game we just played, we had... hm. Two dragon-people, a grimalkin, and two humans. Before that, the group consisted of five humans and a half-elf. That was about as skewed as I've ever seen, though.

 

[boerngrim]

Hi
When I'm on the player side of the table, I find I do tend to play characters other than human. I believe its because when I play I want to escape from myself for a time and be something different, though not completely alien. Elves, dwarves, halflings etc. are different enough from me and other real world people to be exciting, but close enough to human to be relatable.
Thanks.

 

[Merkuri]

When I was first starting to play back in college I thought humans were boring and played nothing but other races. Now that I'm older, I find myself defaulting to human and only using another race if the background demands it, like SteelDraco said. I don't know exactly when that changed or why, but humans aren't boring anymore, and our parties now are often made up of humans, whereas our parties then were more demi-humans.

I think a player's choice of race has a lot to do with his or her reasons for playing the game in the first place. If the player wants to immerse him or herself in the fantasy realm and escape from reality then a non-human PC is the best choice because it's the most different. If, however, the player likes using roleplaying as a way to explore human nature and delve deep into his character's psyche, then humans are best, because they are closest to the real world and you don't have to deal with any strangeness, like characters that have lived three or four times longer than you can hope to live. If the player is just in it for the hack and slash then it depends on the mechanics of the races in the particular game you are playing. A 3rd edition rogue/thief player of this sort might favor humans for the extra feat and skills, but a 2nd edition player might favor haflings for their bonuses to thief abilities.

Remember, that the PCs are often not representative of the population of your world as a whole. It could be that demi-humans are more often drawn to the life of an adventurer than humans are, or it could simply be that your group of adventurers is uncommonly non-human. Just because your group of six only has one human in it doesn't necessarily mean that non-humans outnumber humans five-to-one in the game world.

 

[TerraDave]

I think a typical group may only have one or two humans and two or three non-humans. But that group still exist in a human-dominated world, and humans are still the most common pc race on average. I would go so far as to say that this was the "D&D norm".

Aparently the other races are more likely to produce would be adventurers. (EDIT: as merkuri said, but with more words).

 

[sjmiller]

In my current D&D campaign I have eight players and only one of them is playing a human (Cleric of Kord). Other races are a mixture from the PH and Arcana Evolved: one litorian, two loresong faen, and four elves.

The MegaTraveller campaign I am in has the possibility of alien races. Of the seven players there are two aliens.

I think it really depends on the group and the campaign setting. If I were to play Star Wars I would play human. Same goes for Star Trek. If I were to play in an Arcana Evolved game, I am not sure what I would play, but I doubt it would be human.

 

[Nifft]

Remember, that the PCs are often not representative of the population of your world as a whole. It could be that demi-humans are more often drawn to the life of an adventurer than humans are, or it could simply be that your group of adventurers is uncommonly non-human. Just because your group of six only has one human in it doesn't necessarily mean that non-humans outnumber humans five-to-one in the game world.

Yes, very much agree.

This is why Tieflings in the PHB are fine -- the implication shouldn't be that 1/8 of all innkeepers are Tieflings. It could be the case that Tieflings are only 1/10000 of the population, but all of them are adventurers, because no-one wants to stay at the Brimstone Bed & Breakfast.

Cheers, -- N

 

[edemaitre]

Humans

Interestingly, in most recent parties in my homebrew campaigns, humans have been in the majority, with humanoids slightly ahead of demihumans. I think my group is trying to get away from traditional fantasy and D&D stereotypes, but to each his own. I like demihumans as a player myself, but the setting itself is about 60% human to 40% everything else....

 

[Evilhalfling]

My group tends to favor humans - currently we have an elf, a 1/2 elf and 4 humans, although one human is from a minorty culture/religion, and he has an accent!
prolly 1 elf, 1 other race and 3-4 humans is typical.

The human outlander player has previously played a 1/2 fae, 2 humans, a goblin, a dragonborn, and an elf. Some of which only lasted 1 session.

 

[Tonguez]

aren't there more Elves (all flavors) and Dwarves and Halflings and Gnomes combined then there are humans? Why aren't humans eradicated by the more magical and longer lived races?

1. There is no inherent reason why races as distinct as gnomes and elfs should want to together to eradicate humans than they would work with humans to eradicate dwarfs. So really a straight us and them split between humans and non-humans isn't really valid in a world with multiple distinct races as its more us vs them and them and them which means humans are not necessarily a minority (nor are they necessarily a majority)

2. I've always embraced the human adaptability argument as to why humans are successful.
Lets compare humans dwarfs and elfs.
Dwarfs are adapted to a very narrow habitat range - ie mountain carverns - and in this environment they thrive. However outside this environment they are not well adapted and would suffer but for their incredible endurance. Dwarfs are only viable because they are able to suffer quietly. Dwarfs are not dominant because they are limited by habitat

Elfs on the other hand are hugely mutable. Upon entering a new environmnet they do not adapt as humans do nor do they endure like dwarfs, instead Elfs 'evolve' in less than a couple of generations an entirely new species has developed to live in the particular environmental niche. It is a viable strategy in a magical world but does not lend itself to species consistency and loyalty

Humans however upon entering a new environment will adapt. Humans are able to fit into the environment and thrive whilst remaining 'humans'. This has great benefits for racial pride and loyalty. All humans recognise that they are the same species and are thus willing to cooperate for species survival

3. Gnomes ought to be the dominant species