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
But that's presuming segregated races from the outset. There's no particular reason to presume that. Elves, dwarves, humans and everyone else didn't spring out of the ground in nicely divided locations. Well... thinking about that... they might have, but, presume that they didn't
True. It might also depend on where their deities might have chosen to place them when the setting was created. Did their deities pick out some prime real estate for their chosen species that happened to be some distance from the neighbors? Or did the deities decide to let their chosen species to mingle together in some neighborhood party? ;)

I am betting the former came first.

Of course, the various species could have used magic and magic portals to travel to a world from somewhere else in the multiverse. Some of the species in the Forgotten Realms came into existence on Toril while others such as the Elves and the Dragonborn came from somewhere else. And when they did arrive, they brought their own cultures with them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

They don't need to be a monoculture, but the cultures will still be informed by the species that develop them. Elves will not develop cultures that are exactly like human cultures (or if they will, then having elves seems rather pointless.)



Yes, it is just that in some depictions "washing out differences" is what happens.



But again, there needs to be something that actually sets elves apart from humans, or there is no point in having elves.
Not quite what I'm talking about though. Elves and humans (for example) growing up together in Area 1 will have Culture 1. Elvens and humans in Area 2 will have Culture 2. IOW, the cultures should be geographic, rather than biological in nature. Sure, biology will have some impact - the fact that elves see in the dark will shape culture for example. Or the fact that elves have innate spell abilities. Halfling luck might have some sort of impact on beliefs in a culture. Etc.

But, there should never be "elven culture" or "halfling culture" IMO.
 

Not quite what I'm talking about though. Elves and humans (for example) growing up together in Area 1 will have Culture 1. Elvens and humans in Area 2 will have Culture 2. IOW, the cultures should be geographic, rather than biological in nature. Sure, biology will have some impact - the fact that elves see in the dark will shape culture for example. Or the fact that elves have innate spell abilities. Halfling luck might have some sort of impact on beliefs in a culture. Etc.

But, there should never be "elven culture" or "halfling culture" IMO.

I think there should be elven cultures and halfling cultures. But if the non-humans and humans always share a culture, what's the point of having non-humans?
 

I think there should be elven cultures and halfling cultures. But if the non-humans and humans always share a culture, what's the point of having non-humans?
Well, I'd say in the real world, without any different species (that we know of) on the planet, we still manage a pretty broad range of cultures.

A culture is defined by geography as much as anything. A group of sentient beings (mixed species) that lives in a far north, cold, tundra environment will develop a very different culture from a mixed group in a tropical environment. The species that make up that group will have some impact, sure - like I said, the presence of halflings might impact cultural views of luck, for example - but, the idea that a group of humans in a given environment must have a different culture than a group of elves and a group of halflings and a group of dragonborn, all from the same general geographic area isn't really needed.

Culture needs to be tied to more than just biology. Biology is probably the least interesting way to develop a culture, IMO. Oh, the elves have to be snooty tree huggers because that's what elves are. 🤷 I'd much rather that the people of the Great Forest - a mixture of a half a dozen different species, have developed the culture of the Great Forest. Those people who live next to the Really Interesting Lake a short distance away, have developed their own culture.

Human cultures are not defined by biology by any real means. Why would elves or dwarves or halfligns have an "elf" culture or "dwarf" or "halfling" culture while only humans have a bunch of different cultures? I realize that's the traditional method of presenting races, but, again, a lot of that is simply based on 20th century thinking of the time where it was a lot more ... fashionable(?) to belive that cutures were defined by the color of your skin and people that look different from each other don't mix.
 

Also, I see no reason why an individual GM can't create a setting where non-humans phenomenological constructs are entirely genetically engrained. They might have no more sense of "culture" (a nebulous term in itself) than an ant colony or herd of dear.

Isn't this how orcs and goblins are portrayed in most works? What is stopping an individual GM portray all non-human species similarly? The entire concept of different "cultures" might be exclusive to humanity (in that GM's world).



(Also, please don't respond by bringing up real-world politics. Keep politics out of gaming.)
 

Elves and humans (for example) growing up together in Area 1 will have Culture 1. Elvens and humans in Area 2 will have Culture 2.
So, which cultural traits of the elves and which cultural traits of the humans do you see either culture having in terms of game mechanics? And how did such a mixed culture come about in the first place?

IOW, the cultures should be geographic, rather than biological in nature
I think you mean they should be sociological in nature. Yes, Geography and biology do play a part in such cultures in terms of skill and weapon proficiencies. But sociology plays an even bigger part in shaping them.

But, there should never be "elven culture" or "halfling culture"
Why not? There ought to be enough cultural differences to make them possible and very distinct from human culture.
 

Also, I see no reason why an individual GM can't create a setting where non-humans phenomenological constructs are entirely genetically engrained. They might have no more sense of "culture" (a nebulous term in itself) than an ant colony or herd of dear.

Isn't this how orcs and goblins are portrayed in most works? What is stopping an individual GM portray all non-human species similarly? The entire concept of different "cultures" might be exclusive to humanity (in that GM's world).



(Also, please don't respond by bringing up real-world politics. Keep politics out of gaming.)
Well, that's a bit tricky to do - keep politics out of gaming - since your concept here is grounded in some pretty solid political statements made for a fair length of time. That certain groups of "people" don't really have a culture at all. I mean, how orcs and goblins have been portrayed is largely the issue here. Orcs are the way they are because they are biologically programed that way tends to stray in to some very, very icky territory in a hurry.

I mean, sure, you can do whatever floats your boat. Heck, spin it around. All humans have a single, biologically determined culture and only non-humans can have different cultures, beliefs, languages, etc. Knock yourself out.

Me? I prefer to base culture and whatnot on the idea that it develops from the groups that are living in that area, collectively.
 

So, which cultural traits of the elves and which cultural traits of the humans do you see either culture having in terms of game mechanics? And how did such a mixed culture come about in the first place?


I think you mean they should be sociological in nature. Yes, Geography and biology do play a part in such cultures in terms of skill and weapon proficiencies. But sociology plays an even bigger part in shaping them.


Why not? There ought to be enough cultural differences to make them possible and very distinct from human culture.
Sorry, you lost me. Game mechanics? What does culture have to do with game mechanics?

To me, biology plays so little role in developing a culture that it's not really worth mentioning. Not when D&D humanoids are so close biologically anyway. They all eat the same food, have similar goals and needs, live in more or less the same ways. It's not like elves are nocturnal or halflings hibernate in the winter. An orc is just a bigger human with a different colored skin.

And, historically, these "humanoid cultures" haven't really been all that distinct from human cultures anyway. It's not like dwarves live in socialist collectives with no concept of personal ownership.
 

But that's presuming segregated races from the outset. There's no particular reason to presume that. Elves, dwarves, humans and everyone else didn't spring out of the ground in nicely divided locations. Well... thinking about that... they might have, but, presume that they didn't :D.

One structure I have used is that all humanoids evolved from the same prehistoric ancestor (essentially Homo habilis) and they were geographically segregated in order to evolve different traits

it was essentially

- Humans - Homo Sapiens, Adapted to mixed forest edge/grassland/coastal habitats leading to generalist adaptable traits

- Dwarfs are Neanderthals, fully adapted to alpine/subterranean habitats resulting in stocky, robust builds for cold adaption and darkvision for cave life.

- Orcs - Homo Erectus Robustus, living in badlands/scrub environments, with high predation. Tending towards carnivorous diet due to low availability of plant nutrients, leading to larger canines and tusks

- Elfs are a gracile Homo antecessor branch, adapted to the deep forest (sharper senses) and aboreal foraging. Due to predation the Homo Silvanesis developed a unihemispheric rest cycle, similar to dolphins with half the brain resting for 2–3 hour. At some point many were also exposed to the energy of a feywild portal, this led to enhanced neural repair and memory consolidation which became the Elven trance.

- Halflings are the Floresiensis, a Homo erectus offshoot with a gracile dwarfism.

Bugbears are Australopithicus, Ogres are Paranthropus and Giants are evolved from Gigantopithecus

Anyway each species was seperated long enough to develop large populations and societies that were at a level that they could not quicky wipe out their competitors through war, predation or crossbreeding
 

Well, I'd say in the real world, without any different species (that we know of) on the planet, we still manage a pretty broad range of cultures.

A culture is defined by geography as much as anything. A group of sentient beings (mixed species) that lives in a far north, cold, tundra environment will develop a very different culture from a mixed group in a tropical environment. The species that make up that group will have some impact, sure - like I said, the presence of halflings might impact cultural views of luck, for example - but, the idea that a group of humans in a given environment must have a different culture than a group of elves and a group of halflings and a group of dragonborn, all from the same general geographic area isn't really needed.

Culture needs to be tied to more than just biology. Biology is probably the least interesting way to develop a culture, IMO. Oh, the elves have to be snooty tree huggers because that's what elves are. 🤷 I'd much rather that the people of the Great Forest - a mixture of a half a dozen different species, have developed the culture of the Great Forest. Those people who live next to the Really Interesting Lake a short distance away, have developed their own culture.

Human cultures are not defined by biology by any real means. Why would elves or dwarves or halfligns have an "elf" culture or "dwarf" or "halfling" culture while only humans have a bunch of different cultures? I realize that's the traditional method of presenting races, but, again, a lot of that is simply based on 20th century thinking of the time where it was a lot more ... fashionable(?) to belive that cutures were defined by the color of your skin and people that look different from each other don't mix.

No, the biology affects the culture great deal, it is just than on Earth all us modern humans have basically the same biology, so obviously we do not see that between us humans. But orcas have pretty different cultures than humans!*

You seem to think fantasy species just as different ethnicities of humans. They are not that, they are different species, with different capabilities and temperaments.

The approach you describe is ignoring these differences and leads to erasure of the identity of these species. And once you do that (and I ask this again as you did not answer) what is the point of having them? If you want world where there basically are just different cultures of humans, then do that! No need to have fantasy species if they in all practical purposes are just humans.

(* And yes, cetaceans do have cultures! Different groups of one cetacean species have different dialects, behavioural patterns, hunting and foraging techniques etc and they teach these to their young.)
 
Last edited:

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top