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
If it works for you, it's not a terrible idea. It might be an idea that's less likely to lead to positive results.
No.

It's stating for what D&D is... Tolkienesqe Nonhuman Nations are objectively bad ideas if players are supposed to play and roleplay those species.

We just like Tolkien and low fantasy humancentric setting so much we deny and ignore it.
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?
No.

Elves in my world when I'm DM aren't Tolkienesqe.

Elves do these crazy things called Travel and Immigrate when I DM.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No.

It's stating for what D&D is... Tolkienesqe Nonhuman Nations are objectively bad ideas if players are supposed to play and roleplay those species.

We just like Tolkien and low fantasy humancentric setting so much we deny and ignore it.
I have multiple RPGs based on Tolkien’s work that say different. They don't work well despite adhering to his fiction.

Your opinions here are valid, but subjective. Don't expect to convince me otherwise.
 

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.
One thought I've had in the past - in movie terms - is "the camera is on these guys because they end up having the epic story. It could have been on any of a thousand other people. They don't survive because they are the stars; they are the stars because they are the ones who have (or will) survive.
 

I have multiple RPGs based on Tolkien’s work that say different. They don't work well despite adhering to his fiction.

Your opinions here are valid, but subjective. Don't expect to convince me otherwise.
I'm not saying you can't make an RPG with tolkienesqe specieses.

What I am saying is that it is objectively a bad idea to design a game where you're supposed to be able to play an elf but not ever see an elf.

And do the same thing for a dwarf
And do the same thing for a halfling
And do the same thing for a gnome
And do the same thing for an orc

It's a bad idea to design a game where you aren't supposed to play an aspect you are allowed and encouraged to play unless that's the point of the game.

You can make it work because ultimately it's not the biggest deal but it's just not a good idea.
 

I'm not saying you can't make an RPG with tolkienesqe specieses.

What I am saying is that it is objectively a bad idea to design a game where you're supposed to be able to play an elf but not ever see an elf.

And do the same thing for a dwarf
And do the same thing for a halfling
And do the same thing for a gnome
And do the same thing for an orc

It's a bad idea to design a game where you aren't supposed to play an aspect you are allowed and encouraged to play unless that's the point of the game.

You can make it work because ultimately it's not the biggest deal but it's just not a good idea.
Where are getting this from? I've seen plenty of Elves and Dwarves, etc in directly Tolkein-based games, let alone in games that use his general setting concepts.
 

Where are getting this from? I've seen plenty of Elves and Dwarves, etc in directly Tolkein-based games, let alone in games that use his general setting concepts.
90% of those dwarfs and elves are PCS.

The premise behind old school D&D, tokenesque settings, and setting described in this very thread is that what you walk into the average town, there will be very likely no dwarf or elf NPCs.
 

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 somewhere if you're going to have a setting at all.
Totally. I think the thing is to try to make sure that prospective audiences reasonably know what they're getting into. There's always going to be some unanticipated case that you can't manage, of course, but mostly things should work out.

I think TV and movies can be useful guides: As an example, the USA movie rating system is rough and ready way to set expectations. (Other countries have their own versions.) If you're doing a game for middle schoolers or even just a public-facing game like one at a con, organized play, or a hobby shop with open play, best to keep it PG or PG-13 and not R. Make sure that even if there's darker themes (and boy are there some dark themes in YA fiction!), that the PCs are the good guys. Even in a home game, if you know someone at the table is uncomfortable with descriptions of sex scenes, graphic violence, or whatever it is, imply it and have it fade to black and scene change. If you know it's an adult audience who's signed on for it, you can go for full GoT.
 

One thought I've had in the past - in movie terms - is "the camera is on these guys because they end up having the epic story. It could have been on any of a thousand other people. They don't survive because they are the stars; they are the stars because they are the ones who have (or will) survive.
That's definitely one way of doing it. By contrast, I tend to assume that PCs ARE special in some way... extra motivated, extra capable, the fates smile on them somehow, etc. Most people in the world don't have that je ne sais quoi? So for me, adventurers are a cut above the rest. It's definitely a good idea for a GM to think this one through when devising a campaign.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top