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 I have heard people say that race/species often devolves into a power gaming or cosmetic aspect because the setting has few to no meaningful ties to every race/species and the in world gameplay.

Especially in human centric worlds where the nonhumans are just treated as different color monsters for humans to gawk at or run away from.

I think many setting miss out on potential fun by shoving certain races into a corner or area and not integrating them into the majorities of societies, economies, and cultures.

I mean, what if you leaned into dwarves. They are stout, poison resistant, and can see in the dark. Perfect for their trope of miners. So dwarves could be assumed to be in high populations in any town or city anywhere near a mountain or mine. Have them corner major mining projects and then metal and gem transport that refining and forging to the point most other species don't do in outside of personal flair or poor dwarven diplomacy. Common low level dungeons could be monsters or raiders taking over mines and mining towns and PCs know good equipment awaits the party that rescues a stalled dwarven mining or forge operation.
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
at least in tolkien it seemed to make a little more sense given just how much distance seemed to exist between some of the settlements.
 

In my current campaign, "The Three Kindgoms" (the PHB races) are recent arrivals to an old world. "The Tribes" (the goblinoid races) have spread and control the entire rest of the world, but are closely tied to their "ancestor spirits", primal and fey spirits of nature from which they were created "in the long ago". The Kingsfolk are invaders, were fought and harried and chased into a corner of the main continent, where the dastardly invaders wantonly magically destroyed the land to raise natural barriers to block off their area (cursed mountains, radioactive magical swamps, and a dragon-infested mountain range with a massive river flowing next to it). Within the Kingdoms, the cities are cosmopolitan, but the elves and dwarves have also mostly withdrawn as societies to live in segregated areas. So the cities of Prothus and Kalligan's Port have humans, dwarves, elves, and gnomes (no halflings in this world, and no orcs), with the humans having the majority, but most dwarves either live in the Burrowfound Barony and most elves live in the Alfendark Forest (which technically is in two different baronies, but is effectively its own mini-realm). Mostly the gnomes live in southern Jendar. Racial composition of the Kingdoms is because of who came with the original Arrival, and then species differences (lifespan and fertility), plus the attrition of a decades-long running war with the Tribes until the Kingdoms were founded only 400 years ago. So humans have a majority over the other races, like 50% human, 20% dwarf, 20% gnome, 10% elf.

In my previous campaign, though, I side with many of the other posts in this thread... the world had a racial spread that just formed a "backdrop" for a world that had space and opportunity for whatever the players wanted to play. In the far past, the Elves came from a spcific place, as did the humans and the dragonborn. At some point, they all came to the central continent, fought world-making and -breaking wars, and finally civilization collapsed into The Ten Cities. There was Magisteria, the center of arcane power (cosmopolitan); Godshome, the center of divine power (cosmopolitan); Forgekeep; the center of "technology" (mostly gnome); Hammerdown, source of most minerals and gems (mostly dwarf); and... Well, I forget the other names, but there was a primarily dragonborn City, a human City, an elven City [each near where the races originally came to the continent], and a couple other "cosmopolitan" cities. Fecundity and fertility weren't important; if you wanted to "just be an elf", there many cities you could be from - but if you wanted to lean hard into being an "elfy elf", you came from the Elf City. And that's just where we left it. It was the twilight of that world, with harsh wilderness encroaching on the magically protected Cities, so biological science didn't matter too much to the Story or to us.

Overall, I like to reinforce societal differences between the species, to emphasize (or fit) the mental picture in my mind that I want to reinforce for the Story - but I don't generally worry too much about the science behind how it "works" unless it is important to the Story. And I don't enforce anything on players who chose that race. Just because the elves of Alfendark forest are insular, haughty, and distrustful doesn't mean a PC from there has to be. Maybe she is, because she chooses to be a representative of that society, or maybe she is an adventurer because she didn't fit in! Or maybe she's an elf from some other place, and sees the Alfenrealm as a throwback to a life that "never actually existed". Options abound for stories, and biology doesn't really matter in the span of a campaign...
 


On the one hand, I get the reason for integration. It's what we see in the Real World, so why wouldn't it be that way in the fiction?

On the other hand, the reasons why we integrate in the Real World are sometimes fairly bad. If the orcs are integrated because they were enslaved in bulk before being emancipated, that has uncomfortable and sensitive parallels in the Real World. If dwarves emigrate to a particularly cosmopolitan city because of an economic depression in their homeland caused by a trade war, that has uncomfortable parallels in the Real World.

I play to get away from the Real World, frankly. I can absolutely see why people would not want that in their fantasy.

On the other other hand, Eberron does exactly what I said, providing real reasons why integration has occurred in the setting's history.
 

My point was that elves and dwarves do not need to spend more resources than humans because they game rules assume that elves and dwarves gain a physically adult and fertile body in the same amount of years as a human: ~20 years.

But a dwarf lives for another 200 years in that body.
And an elf lives for another ~600+ years in that body.

Because Gygax and many fans don't think the idea of a 30 year old dwarf baby crawling in the caves or a 75 year old elf in diapers.

The game adds setting based cultural reasons why dwarves and elves are socially considered children until 40 or 100 years,

But even then that gives dwarves and elves multiples on the time that humans have to have children. To the point that one adventuring or knowing a human friend's great grandparent is a meme.


A lot of D&D's logic and worldbuilding is derived of assumptions from books Gygax liked.

But little was taught about what aspects they would break as they change the rules to make it a functioning RPG world.

In the rules Ma and Pa Dwarf can get married at age 50 and live to 250 while being fecund for 200 years. And their children have full adult bodies at 20 and can leave for adventure at 40-50. Even if they staggered births 10 years, Ma and Pa can have 20 kids and 15 of them could potentially be married as they grow old.

If you keep those rules, you need strong excuses to keep the world human centric.
I think reality has shown us that, while it's certainly nice to have solid worldbuilding reasons for your classic fantasy RPG assumptions, you don't actually need the "strong excuses" you're talking about.
 

Let's remember that "human" isn't a species; it's a genus. You can have an all-human world and still have halflings; they're just homo florensis. Orcs are already cross-pollinated with the pop culture idea of neanderthals by way of Frazetta. Frankly, most fantasy "races" are human in writing if not aesthetics; Eberron is relatively unique because it approaches fantasy races and societies like science fiction and builds the world around the abilities of its "monsters."
 

You can but you also have to start deciding when enough is enough. I mean, the formula for black powder isn't actually that complicated and was very much within the realms of the Roman Empire, for instance, and it was of growing importance in the Medieval era. Plate armor developed in a lot of ways because of it. But if you're trying to run a "no gunpowder" game, you have to handwave over the fact that it's not around somehow. Genre limits are as important as connection to the real world.
My response to that is not to run a no gunpowder game, but I know a lot of folks value aesthetics more than I do.
 

I think reality has shown us that, while it's certainly nice to have solid worldbuilding reasons for your classic fantasy RPG assumptions, you don't actually need the "strong excuses" you're talking about.

Well what i mean by "strong excuse" is an excuse that is somewhat tangible and visible in the setting AND more importantly useful for the player and DM.

"I am 300 years old but I did jack all for 250 years" is okay for a book but not for an RPG where players can sit around and learn a spell every month.

"Most elves, dwarves, and gnomes outside their homelands are ambitious restless teens or ex-military of illegitimate birth" is something both DM and Players can make work in the setting.
 

On the one hand, I get the reason for integration. It's what we see in the Real World, so why wouldn't it be that way in the fiction?

On the other hand, the reasons why we integrate in the Real World are sometimes fairly bad. If the orcs are integrated because they were enslaved in bulk before being emancipated, that has uncomfortable and sensitive parallels in the Real World. If dwarves emigrate to a particularly cosmopolitan city because of an economic depression in their homeland caused by a trade war, that has uncomfortable parallels in the Real World.

I play to get away from the Real World, frankly. I can absolutely see why people would not want that in their fantasy.

On the other other hand, Eberron does exactly what I said, providing real reasons why integration has occurred in the setting's history.
I play to explore an imaginary but self-consistent world, plausible within it's assumptions and supernatural exceptions. In many cases that will lead to parallels with the real world, some of which will be uncomfortable. I'd still rather have things make logical sense than not.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top