Worlds of Design: Only Human

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?

 

[Scott Christian]

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

I went with human dominant, although the dwarves used to be dominant. Thus, that allowed for me to have ruins scattered throughout the continent. The continent is contained via storms, which helps me add a distinct layer.

Once the PCs leave the continent (if they ever do), all the other continents are not human. This produces a nice shift of "we belong, we fit in, etc." to "we are complete outsiders."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One thing that sort of traditional fantasy has leaned into is the notion of segregation. You have the "elf lands" "dwarf lands" etc.

More modern takes on fantasy have become far more integrated. If your world has a bunch of different humanoid species, it does make a lot more sense that they would be far more integrated than they are usually presented. At least, in my mind, it makes more sense. After all, why wouldn't a human lord try to encourage peaceful interaction with ogres to use as a work force? That sort of thing. More integrated societies are typically far stronger than segregated ones, at least in the real world.

I'm a bit two minds about this, and this is reflected on my world Artra. There is some integration, many non-humans live alongside humans in several places. But there also are significant mono-species groups.

The issue with complete integration is that the uniqueness of each species tends to vanish. I have noted this about Critical Role's Exandroia recently; it is very integrated and most places are just a mix of different species. And whilst it gives a nice veneer of cosmopolitanity, it also means that the species feel pretty meaningless. There is no temperament or culture associated with a species, everyone are just different looking humans. And I think you can take the melting pot too far. Is it really multiculturalism if everyone basically has the same culture?

That's why I have opted to include the mono-species "home societies" for most species in my setting, alongside more integrated elements. It gives each species a core identity, even if not every member of that species would follow it, and it will inform them culturally even when integrated into other societies. And as we are talking about literal different species, instead of just human cultures, this even seems realistic to me. Artran orcs are hardy desert dwellers because they're physically far more resilient to heat and hardship; they can endure in places that would be inhospitable to humans. Similarly the eldri are small and nimble creatures with great balance, thus they can make homes on top of the trees of the mighty jungles, and run along branches with far greater ease than humans could.

 

[Aldarc]

I was re-reading Wizards Presents Worlds & Monsters for 4e, as one does, and there is a part where the designers intentionally wanted to not make "PoLand" as anthropocentric as other D&D worlds: pg. 24, "The End of Human Dominion."

The End of Human Dominion
—Matthew Sernett

If you examine all the campaign settings produced for the D&D game, each is unique and interesting, but all share a key feature: The world is divided into realms, and is largely dominated by humans. From its beginning as a medieval wargame, D&D has always assumed that humans rule the world.

Even if humans don’t control all of it, the majority of any previously published campaign setting is divided into kingdoms as clearly as a modern globe delineates real-world countries. This assumption has the side effect of civilizing a world. Things seem safer when you put borders around them. Farms should dot the landscape, and army patrols should pass through on some regular schedule.

These two characteristics combine to make a typical D&D setting a simulation of the real world. As a result, the world becomes less fantastic. A human-populated empire that resembles ancient Egypt, but with mummies in control, is less interesting than a realm ruled by salamanders, lizardfolk, or even dwarves.

For 4th Edition D&D, we wanted to break away from a civilized, human-dominated world as the default setting. More of the world should be mysterious and dangerous—offering more places for adventures and providing players with a sense of wonder.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

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.

 

[RealAlHazred]

In a game where the players a literally encouraged to beat their enemies to death with sticks, is the idea of economic depression really that uncomfortable? I can understand (even if I don't completely agree with) the uncomfortableness around slavery, but the rest of that sounds like some pretty extreme sanitization to me.

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.

 

[CF07]

Sure, but a lot of those folks are still going to due early in my estimation. And I really think that makes sense.

Oh yeah, totally, many of them did die early. They were rolling the dice for a potential big payout figuring that their alternatives at home were pretty poor otherwise.