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
Humans can reproduce a lot faster than Dwarves and Elves. Thats going to give the. A huge advantage in building population.

That never made sense to me.

Dwarves and Elves live longer. And they age slower. And they have healing magic or stronger bodies. And they don't fight internal wars (after the first major subrace one)

So they're hundred year olds and 200 year olds would still be alive when humans elderly would be long dead.

So even if a human couple has five children after a hundred year, they are dead. And likely a good percentage of their children.

So humans really shouldnt outpace elves and dwarves until humans get major medical advancement.

But that's all my environmental science studies talking.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That never made sense to me.

Dwarves and Elves live longer. And they age slower. And they have healing magic or stronger bodies. And they don't fight internal wars (after the first major subrace one)

So they're hundred year olds and 200 year olds would still be alive when humans elderly would be long dead.

So even if a human couple has five children after a hundred year, they are dead. And likely a good percentage of their children.

So humans really shouldnt outpace elves and dwarves until humans get major medical advancement.

But that's all my environmental science studies talking.
I believe the implicit assumption is that as "elder races", the very essence of the dwarves and elves "as a people" are tired and simply don't produce new souls very quickly, such that new children are relatively rare.

It doesn't matter if you live 500 years if you only have one or two children in that time period.

It is kind of interesting how Tolkien's elves ended up unintentionally foreshadowing the demographic decline of the 21st century.
 

Why humans? D&D probably wouldn't have sold well if the main pitch of the game was "Buy this game and pretend to be an Orc..." Once the game was established, players wanted to try different things and the publishers obliged. But even then, it is far easier to imagine a Human centric world as one can refer to historic documents and drop in a <fill in the blank> society from history and tweak to taste. A bit more work to drop in a well developed society of 4 armed green Tharks from Barsoom. Sadly, what often happens is the author takes a human village and reskins everyone as Tharks and pretends that everything else works just like a human village. Easier but gets kind of boring after a while.

And why should Humans be so dominant? Just because Tolkien said so? Maybe the above Tharks just can't deal with cold temps(cold blooded?) and largely leave the cold regions to other races while dealing harshly with any incursions into the warmer places. If the planet is mostly warm, then Tharks could be the dominant society with Humans relegated to a minor role and in competition with other warm blooded critters for the limited cool Thark free areas.
 

Why humans? D&D probably wouldn't have sold well if the main pitch of the game was "Buy this game and pretend to be an Orc..." Once the game was established, players wanted to try different things and the publishers obliged. But even then, it is far easier to imagine a Human centric world as one can refer to historic documents and drop in a <fill in the blank> society from history and tweak to taste. A bit more work to drop in a well developed society of 4 armed green Tharks from Barsoom. Sadly, what often happens is the author takes a human village and reskins everyone as Tharks and pretends that everything else works just like a human village. Easier but gets kind of boring after a while.
I think, in the '70s, when fantasy fiction was still pretty niche, creating a human-dominated world was just a natural assumption. No one had a lot of exposure to the idea of fantasy settings that would be species cosmopolitan. Those kind of settings were created by people continuing to stretch the norms over time, as is the case with pretty much all creative endeavors.
 

I believe the implicit assumption is that as "elder races", the very essence of the dwarves and elves "as a people" are tired and simply don't produce new souls very quickly, such that new children are relatively rare
Yeah but many post 1990s setting have elves and dwarves be very active. So there is a sense of dissonance.
 

Yeah but many post 1990s setting have elves and dwarves be very active. So there is a sense of dissonance.
For sure.

I mean, I think it's pretty obvious these two ideas are in tension.

1) Elves and Dwarves live in the world with Humans, but Humans are much more common and widespread.
2) Elves and Dwarves have similar reproduction patterns to humans, but have a reproductive window and overall lifespans of centuries as opposed to a few decades.

You can't logically have both, I think. The only way I could see to support both is to suppose the bulk of Elves and Dwarves go elsewhere and simply aren't involved in the core setting.

Assuming that's not the case, most people seem to prefer case 1, and thus come up with rationales for case 2 not to be true.
 

For sure.

I mean, I think it's pretty obvious these two ideas are in tension.

1) Elves and Dwarves live in the world with Humans, but Humans are much more common and widespread.
2) Elves and Dwarves have similar reproduction patterns to humans, but have a reproductive window and overall lifespans of centuries as opposed to a few decades.

You can't logically have both, I think. The only way I could see to support both is to suppose the bulk of Elves and Dwarves go elsewhere and simply aren't involved in the core setting.

Assuming that's not the case, most people seem to prefer case 1, and thus come up with rationales for case 2 not to be true.
I don't even think people prefer 1 anymore.

Kinda feeling that "modern" setting have no problem with tons of elves and dwarves and them being as seen as humans.
 

I don't even think people prefer 1 anymore.

Kinda feeling that "modern" setting have no problem with tons of elves and dwarves and them being as seen as humans.
Yea, that tracks.

In my own games, elves and dwarves are generally less common, but I do have rationales for that, and they are well-known within the setting.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top