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
In my world, it's Gnomes. Unbeknownst to the other species, when Gnomes have children, they really have children. Often dozens at once.
That is some serious fecundity. More so than Goblins canonically. This could have some interesting consequences. With such birth rates is infant or child mortality high? If so, why? Disease? Cultural practices? Environmental hazards? Culling by dangerous animals? Even if all of those children reach adults of breeding age, then that raises other possibilities.

Is life considered cheap? Is there high competition for resources and social positions? How has society shaped around such explosive population growth? What is the typical family structure and child rearing like? I'm trying to imagine the logistics of the average family having 12 to 36 or more children at a time, then imagining just how large a family could be with several cycles of such childbirths. At that rate, one adult couple could sire close to 100 children in an average marriage. Considering that those two parents would also have 150 to 200 siblings between them, each of whom would also have 60 to 100 children, and that's an extended family of possibly 20 thousand cousins, and we're not considering any other generations like grandparents, great aunts and uncles, and all their descendants! Just a single family gathering could equal most cities!

How do you financially support, physically house, feed, clothe, and socially raise from infancy to adulthood 100 children? Even if you space your litters of children far apart, trying to do the same for 12 to 36 or more children seems ... intense. Would most families be utterly poverty-stricken by the expenses of so many kids to support? Would they be expected to fend for themselves very early on in life? Or is sibling competition so fierce that only a handful survive childhood? So many more questions are suggested by "dozens (of children) at once"...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Only a co
That is some serious fecundity. More so than Goblins canonically. This could have some interesting consequences. With such birth rates is infant or child mortality high? If so, why? Disease? Cultural practices? Environmental hazards? Culling by dangerous animals? Even if all of those children reach adults of breeding age, then that raises other possibilities.

Is life considered cheap? Is there high competition for resources and social positions? How has society shaped around such explosive population growth? What is the typical family structure and child rearing like? I'm trying to imagine the logistics of the average family having 12 to 36 or more children at a time, then imagining just how large a family could be with several cycles of such childbirths. At that rate, one adult couple could sire close to 100 children in an average marriage. Considering that those two parents would also have 150 to 200 siblings between them, each of whom would also have 60 to 100 children, and that's an extended family of possibly 20 thousand cousins, and we're not considering any other generations like grandparents, great aunts and uncles, and all their descendants! Just a single family gathering could equal most cities!

How do you financially support, physically house, feed, clothe, and socially raise from infancy to adulthood 100 children? Even if you space your litters of children far apart, trying to do the same for 12 to 36 or more children seems ... intense. Would most families be utterly poverty-stricken by the expenses of so many kids to support? Would they be expected to fend for themselves very early on in life? Or is sibling competition so fierce that only a handful survive childhood? So many more questions are suggested by "dozens (of children) at once"...
Only a few Gnomes actually have children, which are spread throughout the colony, and raised by different adults, relieving the stress from the parents. Only 2-3 children per adult.
 

Only a few Gnomes actually have children, which are spread throughout the colony, and raised by different adults, relieving the stress from the parents. Only 2-3 children per adult.
Very interesting. So the vast majority, 90% or more, of all Gnomes are NOT raised by their birth parents, but by another couple, who themselves don't have children of their own. So a society of primarily adopted people. This might result in some interesting views on families, parental roles, parent-child relationships, even courtship practices. Also, if only about 5-8% of all Gnomes are eligible to have children, who decides which couples get to have children? Are there penalties for those among the prohibited 90% who have children anyway? After all, the consequences of people NOT obeying the parenting limits are catastrophic population explosion.

Wait a minute... Above you said they have massive populations, so large that people don't know the true population numbers, and that it was due to Gnomes having dozens of children. Now you're saying they also avoided all the problems of runaway population growth by severely limiting who gets to have children such that a couple who DOES get to reproduce can spread their litter of dozens of babies among the general population such that each couple only has 2-3 children. If so, that is essentially matching the replacement rate, which wouldn't create any population growth. In fact, if there is ANY disease, accidents, or war in their world it wouldn't be enough to replace the death rate, putting the population in decline, not have massive populations so large that people don't realize how many Gnomes there "really" are.

I think you need to re-examine your math. Perhaps somewhere between "everyone has dozens of babies" and "every parenting pair has only 2-3 kids". Maybe all Gnomes have litters of 8 to 16? That would still result in impressive population growth, yet manageable enough to prevent them from drowning in Gnome babies! LOL! :)
 

Very interesting. So the vast majority, 90% or more, of all Gnomes are NOT raised by their birth parents, but by another couple, who themselves don't have children of their own. So a society of primarily adopted people. This might result in some interesting views on families, parental roles, parent-child relationships, even courtship practices. Also, if only about 5-8% of all Gnomes are eligible to have children, who decides which couples get to have children? Are there penalties for those among the prohibited 90% who have children anyway? After all, the consequences of people NOT obeying the parenting limits are catastrophic population explosion.

Wait a minute... Above you said they have massive populations, so large that people don't know the true population numbers, and that it was due to Gnomes having dozens of children. Now you're saying they also avoided all the problems of runaway population growth by severely limiting who gets to have children such that a couple who DOES get to reproduce can spread their litter of dozens of babies among the general population such that each couple only has 2-3 children. If so, that is essentially matching the replacement rate, which wouldn't create any population growth. In fact, if there is ANY disease, accidents, or war in their world it wouldn't be enough to replace the death rate, putting the population in decline, not have massive populations so large that people don't realize how many Gnomes there "really" are.

I think you need to re-examine your math. Perhaps somewhere between "everyone has dozens of babies" and "every parenting pair has only 2-3 kids". Maybe all Gnomes have litters of 8 to 16? That would still result in impressive population growth, yet manageable enough to prevent them from drowning in Gnome babies! LOL! :)
I probably do! Thanks!
 

I probably do! Thanks!
You're welcome. Personally, I'd go with saddling them with the nigh insurmountable birth rate because I think it would create more interesting challenges, both for the Gnomes from a worldbuilding perspective and for the players from a character decision perspective. Gnomes with potentially crippling birth rates would force a wide range of challenges and responses on them. Some of the ways different groups would handle the situation would make for fascinating in-game cultures. The results of those hard decisions they'd be forced to make would result in very interesting and potentially morally challenging situations for the player characters. In some cases, the "solutions" might even warrant the PCs earning their "hero" status by trying to step in and improve the circumstances. In other situations, players may have fun roleplaying their character's reactions to the novel and sometimes bizarre Gnomish cultures they'd encounter. There'd be cultural standards among some Gnomish cultures which the average player may find very different from their real world experiences.

On the flip side, CREATING and properly portraying all of the varied ways the Gnomes would build difference societies in response to their overwhelming birth rate would be a massive amount of work and I don't blame anyone for wanting to lessen their burden by toning down the birth rate to more reasonable levels. Good luck with your worldbuilding!
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top