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
I developed a slightly biological largely tongue in cheek approach and came up with the notion that

Dwarfs are adapted to Alpine environments, it is there at altitude that they thrive. It is only because of their high endurance that they are able to venture to lowland habitats, however when they do they are under duress, which is why dwarfs tend to be grumpy and drunk to cope.

Elves have the opposite problem of hyper adaptability, which with their fey nature means that as an elf clan settles into a new habitat they adapt so much that a new sub-species emerges. Thats the reason why there are so many different kinds of elf with different features, it also results in each elf clan developing as its own isolate so they dont have a drive to unite and build empires.

Giants (including goliaths) are limited by their need to consume more resources than humans which results in them having larger territories - sometimes their territories are so large that other peoples will live within them without even notice the giants passing through.

Halflings/Gnomes are as abundant as humans but only take up half the room and in the case of halflings are often found living within human societies anyway, far fewer in the shadowlands. Gnomes have the fey type and are more abundant in forests or even in the fey realm.

Orcs are a problem, especially with the lack of species penalties. When Orcs are as intelligent and charismatic as Humans then there is really no reason why they havent expanded to dominate. Unless Orcish aggression is an inherent rather than a cultural trait - Orcs simply dont have the psychological ability to form strong cohesive units beyond the level of 'family/clan' without becoming self-destructive.

I tend to exclude Hobgoblins from my games but have played in one world where Hobgoblins were the dominant species, their culture being very baroque and reminding me of the Kingdom of Prussia with its military focus and Baroque absolutism.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Chris Perkins sums up my feelings on humans in fantasy extremely well; Once, when asked by a fan what his favorite type of creature to use as villains in a D&D campaign was, he simply answered, "Humans."

And they're a necessary evil; They're the devil you know, because fact of the matter is, our society is a human society. But they are also indicative that no matter what flavor of fantasy you subscribe to, you're as much a part of that world as you are your own, which is equal parts essential to being able to project even onto other fantasy species when playing as or with them, and to learn from the collaborative story you're making at the game table as the human element is prevalent even when they aren't in sight on the stage of the theater of the mind.
 

I don't worry too much about species' populations in my settings, unless it is going to be a specific plot point (like they are on the verge of extinction, or are being targeted for some reason). Otherwise, nations are defined more by their cultures, politics, and geography. Some areas do tend to have a preponderance of humans, while others have more elves, goliaths, goblins, and so on. But most areas have a number of species living and working together.

I never liked the human-centric assumptions of D&D, especially back in the 1e days. They always felt like Gygax assuming that his personal taste was objectively justified. He was wrong: there is no particularly compelling reason why any setting needs to be dominated by humans or any others species except for DM and player preference, as the article ultimately concludes.
 

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.
isn't the idea that though the original parents will have died and even if their children are also getting near that point if each of those five children went on to have their own 3-5 kids it's just exponential, a hundred years ago there was only the human couple, now there's 15-25 humans who will go on to have their own families and so on and so forth, for a species that measures life milestones in centuries elves are going to find themselves up to their elbows in humans far sooner than they think,

and as for medical advancements, well, the local clergy should be able to typically function as sufficiently advanced medical treatment, at least notably more advanced compared to what our own world had at those times, lesser restoration is a mere 2nd level spell.
 

isn't the idea that though the original parents will have died and even if their children are also getting near that point if each of those five children went on to have their own 3-5 kids it's just exponential, a hundred years ago there was only the human couple, now there's 15-25 humans who will go on to have their own families and so on and so forth, for a species that measures life milestones in centuries elves are going to find themselves up to their elbows in humans far sooner than they think,

and as for medical advancements, well, the local clergy should be able to typically function as sufficiently advanced medical treatment, at least notably more advanced compared to what our own world had at those times, lesser restoration is a mere 2nd level spell.
The bolded is the mistake.

Humans in the time periods D&D replicate... die a lot.

Yes, human populations can explode. But until medical and agricultural advancement occurs, humans hit a population cap and sloooows dooown. It goes from 5/5 children surviving to marriage and family to 2.5/5 children.

Humans like dying from disease and war, So until humans learn medicine and stop killing each other en masse, their populations plateau after a point.

Elves. Elves in TTRPG don't do jack squat after the initial high/wood/drow/dark/blood/night/wild faction wars 10,000 years ago. Soo you have a 700 year old couple where none of there children die. An elven couple can be together for 500 years and in 500 years only 5%* of their children die and 90% of them start families. And they have magic to support themselves.

Fantasy elves don't starve or get the Plague or catch hurricanes to the face.

Fantasy dwarves are old too. But they do be a "Hated enemy Warring". But more dwarf babies means more soldiers and miners to their forever war. Mama Dwarf should have 20 babies and lose 5 in the Giant wars, 2 in the Goblin Wars, and 1 in the Kobold Wars. Still leaving 10 dwarves from 2 dwarves.

So fantasy stories always have to make up some cultural excuse why there aren't like a billion dwarves and elves and 50% of the world terraformed to feed them.

If my uncle had 200 years of prime fertile lifespans, he would have 40 kids. And bro. 40 is a low number.

*drow are the exception. But drow are hedonistic so there should be tons of drow babies to keep up with the backstabbing. And they are conpetitive so drow houses should naturally try to outbreed their rivals.
 

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

My most recent setting spans multiple worlds. With the exception of two, every group originated on their own world. They are adapted to unique aspects of these worlds, but not geographical aspects for the most part.

Humans are inter-world refugees that were folded into the Cothan Empire (think Quanari-like). Their population only matters because they reproduce faster than Cothans and the Empire has noticed.
 


It might be interesting to have a setting where Human reproduction levels tend to decrease in higher background levels of magic and increase the less ambient magic there is. Meanwhile, the reverse is true for Elves and Dwarves... This would create an inherent tension and conflict between the races without either one of them needing to be actively evil towards each other. It would also explain why Human spellcasters, many of whom tend to live much longer than their non magic-wielding human neighbours, don't end up with massive clans of spell chucking descendants. It would also help explain why there tend to be racially dominant lands. Obviously, in the Human lands the Elves and Dwarves would see their populations grow more slowly, while Humans would naturally not be a prominent in the Elven or Dwarven lands. This could also set up conflicts should one group expand into the lands of another as if the newcomers gain a foothold their mere presence and lifestyles could become long term damaging to the local populations.
 

Humans in my world a very, very rare as they are not native to the material world of Salvera and have only really arrived to the realm roughly a decade ago alongside a outsider dragon god that then immediately joins my world's pantheon. And even then, they have been "blessed" with a small bit of draconic power and as such showcase slight draconic features. Think Yuan-ti Purebloods but dragony instead of snakey. The very few true non-dragonic humans that are on the plane crash landed from spelljammers that accidently ended up entering the wildspace around Salvera and crash landing, as any such vessel ceases working in Salveran wildspace and are magically pulled to the plane to ensure no one can escape back to the rest of the multiverse (long story).

As far as which races/species that are the most populous, well it would probably be the likes of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, dragonborns gnolls, and the orclins (orcs and the goblinoids).
 

I never liked the human-centric assumptions of D&D, especially back in the 1e days. They always felt like Gygax assuming that his personal taste was objectively justified. He was wrong: there is no particularly compelling reason why any setting needs to be dominated by humans or any others species except for DM and player preference, as the article ultimately concludes.
Gygax most definitely assumed his personal taste was objectively justified! He was infamous for arguing that way in Dragon; frequently he'd change his mind a few years later and argue just as strongly that it was objectively justified!
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top