Worlds of Design: Only Human

Why are humans the dominant species in many fantasy RPGs?
lego-1044891_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

“There is no such thing as human superiority.” – Dwight Eisenhower (Supreme Allied Commander WW II Europe, and 34th President)

Humans are generally positioned as the baseline to which other species are compared, no doubt because humans are playing the game. Dungeons & Dragons famously centered humans as the “main” species lest the game turn into less fantasy medieval and more abstract fantasy – all of which seems quaint now given the dizzying variety of fantasy worlds in books and on screen. But there are other reasons why humans might logically be more common in a fantasy world, and which reasons you choose can set the tone for your game.

Magical Proficiency​

My first answer is humans can use magic much more proficiently than any rival. Not every species can learn more, and more complex, spells, and use magical items. Originally in RPGs there were level limits for nonhuman playable species (often wrongly called races) such as elves and dwarves. This helped prevent them from dominating humans. Modern dislike of constraints tends to see those limitations removed in later rulesets, so this doesn’t necessarily apply anymore to later editions of D&D or other fantasy rulesets. But there are likely other reasons for human dominance, such as adaptability, ambition, and organization.

Adaptability​

Humans in general are very adaptable, as we can see from humans being able to live in almost any conditions, very hot, very cold, with water all around, or in deserts. Human inventiveness is something historians appreciate with each passing decade as the pace of technological innovation continues to increase. Even the ability to domesticate animals is a sign of adaptability. To put it another way: humans are jacks of all trades. Whatever needs to be done, humans will figure out how to do it.

In comparison, many species – inherited from the Tolkien tradition – were deeply tied to their origin: dwarves in the mountains, elves in the forests, hobbits in the hills, and orcs underground. There are plenty of exceptions to these broad strokes across fiction, but the general sentiment holds true that many species are uniquely adapted to their homelands, whereas humans can theoretically be found anywhere.

I remember reading a book by science fiction writer Keith Laumer about his famous character Retief, where the intelligent aliens of a system were astonished that humans could drive vehicles without massive collisions everywhere. Whether you call this adaptability or organization, it’s the kind of thing that might make humans stand out from some other species.

Ambition​

A key element of elves and dwarves and hobbits is their longing for their homelands. All three are often represented as either wanting to stay in their original lands or pining to return to them. This isn’t necessarily the case for humans, who by their nature in fantasy settings tend to be expansionist. Another way to put this, from novelist John Steinbeck's The Pearl:
For it is said that humans are never satisfied, that you give them one thing and they want something more. And this is said in disparagement, whereas it is one of the greatest talents the species has and one that has made it superior to animals that are satisfied with what they have.

While on the one hand this makes humans a catalyst for change, their need to explore and conquer can start wars and bring other species into conflict with them. From a fantasy role-playing game standpoint, this urge to pick up roots facilitates adventures too.

Organization​

The more we know about history, the more we know how chaotic and disorganized humans can be. Yet compared with other species we might be quite well-organized, up to and including empires. Imagine how less effective humans would be if they could never come together in a state/polity larger than a few thousand people. How often do we see imperial elves, say, or dwarves conquering human kingdoms? (The answer depends partly on how much dwarves and elves resemble humans, and if you play Spelljammer.)

And within any state, we can have remarkable organization at times. This affects production, agriculture, and well-being just as much as military capability. Other fantasy species, on the other hand, are often more chaotic than humans, and commonly less organized. What we can’t really know is how much intelligence naturally leads to the urge to organize, because we have no other intelligent species to compare with in the real world.

We’re Only Human​

Of course, the real reason why humans dominate fantasy is because the readers/players are humans, and prefer the familiar. Increasingly, that’s becoming less common as role-playing games branch out, and other media portrays the wide variety of species as coexisting with humans. In some cases, humans aren’t the dominant species at all.

In Dungeons & Dragons, making humans the baseline was a design choice. Later editions have made species less rules-specific and thus more defined by their background than their origin, freeing up other species to succeed on their own merits. But for many campaigns, humans are so ubiquitous they fade into the background. If humans are your baseline in your world, it’s worth considering how they got there.

Your Turn: What’s the non-human dominant species in your fantasy world?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
In my recent campaign, elves were immortal. They could be killed but they wouldn't age naturally beyond a certain point. Kind of like Tolkien elves. I portrayed them as almost infertile by our standards. When a child was born the news spread across an entire land. With the level of violence in a fantasy world, it is hard for the elves to even achieve replacement. Dwarves are more fertile than elves but they are less so than humans. I portray longevity as a reverse indicator of fertility. Thus orcs are very fertile as they don't live as long as humans.
And my point is that's good ideas for a book.

It's a terrible idea for a violent dungeoneering RPG.

We are just used to it and unwilling to analyze it
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I tend to think Gygax's idea that most everyone is 0 level except for an exception few doesn't make sense at all.
Gary: "Everybody in the world should be an absolute schlub except for the PCs and the occasional Evil High Priest or Antipaladin; i.e., major villains with schemes."

Also Gary: "I'm going to have this random hermit in the mountains be an absolute schlub, except that he's also the most power Mind Controller on the entire planet."
 


I am the opposite. I tend to think Gygax's idea that most everyone is 0 level except for an exception few doesn't make sense at all. This is one area I departed from this thinking. I will add though that even he didn't live up to this idea with any real sense of success.

For me, up to about 6th level, is common. 7th to 12th level is uncommon. 13th+ is rare.

Some NPCs obviously would be represented differently but they'd have higher skills than the level system would allow. This is actually why I prefer GURPS when it comes to NPCs.

So most knights fall in the uncommon band. I tend to work out a system for the density of leveled individuals based on the type of campaign I am running. I also tend to break it down first by nation.
I guess I do the same (in my current campaign), but weighted closer to the Schulb side of the scale. level 1ish is kids, teenagers, and completely untrained. level 2 is normal competence or older-but-not great. level 3 is very competent or normal-but-experienced. level 4 is elite/master. level 5 is celebrity-status, everyone knows your name, grandmaster, amazing. Have you heard about the archmage of the Ruby Spire? I hear she can fly!!! And that Captain of the Royal Guard... damn, I saw him take down two knights at the same time!

PCs - by virtue of Fate, divine favor, extreme luck, insidious rituals during gestation, whatever - quickly rise through these ranks, and eclipse the normal scale. But because of that "quickly" aspect... don't necessarily achieve the same fame as the Captain does. The "Archmage" might try to push them around, only to see them facetank the fireball, dimension door behind her, and pickpocket her spellbook....
 

Can you tell me why? What does it limit me from doing? How does it affect players?
Every elf life is precious and rare. Elves don't have many babies. Elf spend most of their time doing manual tasks and not evolving themselves.

Player: I want to play an Elf Wizard

Setting: No. The elves would rarely allow a fully trained elf wizard to leave their lands willingly to risk themselves dying in a cave.
 

It doesn't seem bad to you and I because it's just fictional dwarves leaving the Dwarf homeland because, say, the Elves devastated it in the War of Kin after claiming they had lived there long before and the territory belonged to them; it's all fictive positioning. But if, as the player, I'm from Ukraine, and my family and I came to the United States to get away from the front... You can see how there might be a parallel I find uncomfortable, depending on how it is presented.

Sensitivity isn't a generic band-aid. My home group, I can approach these things and not worry about it because none of the situations apply to myself and the players. But at a hobby shop or a convention game, you don't know the other people at the table. They may have signed up for the session not knowing anything about it other than "It's escapism" only to have something deeply personal rear up and bite them.

People might not even know they are sensitive. I had an extreme emotional reaction some time ago to someone I knew who passed from cancer. After thinking about it, I suddenly remembered my best friend died from cancer -- 40 years ago. I had harbored it buried inside me for decades without realizing, until it came up again. I could easily see something similar happening in a game. And, at a convention among strangers is not the place to suddenly have a breakdown.
That all makes sense, but it leads to asking: what can you present when you're trying to sell a product to the public, if any potential consumer could see any part of your setting as possessing unpleasant parallels from their point of view? You have to draw a line sonewhere if you're going to have a setting at all.
 

That's a major point where I differ from you. I do want "being a PC" to be an exception in my game. I want PCs (along with certain select NPCs) to be "destined for greatness" with their success being baked in, rather than having them run the simulationist gauntlet to see whether or not they win the Successful Adventurer lottery. It's a point where I'm willing to depart from pure simulationism.

I figure this to be an extension of letting PCs use special methods to generate their ability scores, rather than having to roll straight sets of 3d6 the way the general non-adventuring NPC population does (or the equivalent in an non-D&D system), and then keep generating PCs until you get one with lucky 'good' stats.
Yeah, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't believe a character is special beyond the standards of their heritage and culture just because a player at the table decides what they do. That path is too narrative for my tastes. The world does not revolve around the PCs in my game; rather. It's just that the "camera" happens to be pointed at them. Other folks are doing stuff that's just as valid and meaningful.

Regarding the stats and rolling issue (I never use point buy), because any rolling method leads to results that are possible (if sometimes unlikely) using any other rolling method, I have no problem using methods that tend to produce stronger PCs so the players have more fun at the table. The results are still within the numerical range.
 


Every elf life is precious and rare. Elves don't have many babies. Elf spend most of their time doing manual tasks and not evolving themselves.

Player: I want to play an Elf Wizard

Setting: No. The elves would rarely allow a fully trained elf wizard to leave their lands willingly to risk themselves dying in a cave.
So elf culture is totalitarian and oppressive in your world? Do other elves physically stop the adventurerous among them from leaving the community? Are all elves like this in your setting?
 

hat's a major point where I differ from you. I do want "being a PC" to be an exception in my game. I want PCs (along with certain select NPCs) to be "destined for greatness" with their success being baked in, rather than having them run the simulationist gauntlet to see whether or not they win the Successful Adventurer lottery.
Maybe you should take a look at Level Up's Destiny feature? It provides the PCs a reason to leave behind their homes, their friends and their jobs to undertake an adventure well outside their comfort zone.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top