PDA

View Full Version : Humans in Fantasy: Why they Thrive?



Mr. Mask
2014-05-05, 12:45 PM
A long time back, I think there was a thread like this, for discussing why it is humans do well in fantasy settings. I thought it was a pretty interesting discussion, and worth bringing up again.


Generally, humans are given the lion's share in fantasy, scifi, and other settings. Humans sometimes exist when it doesn't necessarily make sense (Starwars) but can be taken for granted as they need people similar to the readers/watchers/players so they can relate.


To sum up the typical answers as to why humans do well:

1. Humans breed faster that all/most rivals.

2. Humans are more adaptive.

3. Humans are more creative.

4. Humans have a stronger will to survive, thrive, and do stuff, generally attributed to their short lifespans (compared to other fictional races), or just their nature.

5. Humans are evil, violent, backstabbing, self-destructive monsters who use dirty means to get ahead of the other races (popular in some fiction, particularly settings with intelligent animals as major characters).

6. Humans are weak, so they're practised at subverting superior creatures/powers.

7. Other races don't compete with humans, the other races watching them from the sidelines or disappearing from the picture altogether (Tolkien had this).

8. Humans are balanced (similar to the adaptive). While some creature breed faster or are stronger or are smarter, humans have the right balance to thrive.



Those are the main arguments that come to mind as to why humans would thrive. If you want to discuss them further, add new ones, or give reasons why humans are unlikely to thrive with the usual competition... then I encourage it, and we will be in for a fun discussion.

Slipperychicken
2014-05-05, 01:03 PM
I'd say it's mostly the writers' ethnocentrism :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, this question can only be answered for a given setting if we know what the other species are like.

Airk
2014-05-05, 01:08 PM
I think you left off "Humans are tenacious and determined and hard to get rid of, like lice or cockroaches." :P

but yeah, I'm not sure what discussion you're trying to engender here.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-05, 01:22 PM
Though the breeding rates might cover the cockroach angle.


I understand that this issue is setting-specific in part. It's enough of a trope across settings that there are some trends. Warhammer and most DnD settings, from what I recall, are pretty comparable examples of this trope (I can't remember if humans were on top in Warhammer).


As for the kind of discussion, there are quite a few angles to discuss this from. Breeding rates, for example, can be subverted by a lack of food (can't have more kids if there's nothing to feed them), so settings where humans don't have enough resources don't really give them the benefit of outbreeding their rivals. Another way to make up for low breeding rates can be to try harder/more often to procreate, or start recruiting humans to fight humans for you (that one doesn't seem to come up a lot).

Slipperychicken
2014-05-05, 01:26 PM
Another way to make up for low breeding rates can be to try harder/more often to procreate, or start recruiting humans to fight humans for you (that one doesn't seem to come up a lot).

Or, you know, raise your damn kids so they survive to adulthood. Just a thought :smalltongue:

Airk
2014-05-05, 01:28 PM
Though the breeding rates might cover the cockroach angle.

Not really; If anything, it's more a combination of adaptive and mean. ;)

Sith_Happens
2014-05-05, 01:30 PM
Two words: Bonus feat.:smallcool:

Mr. Mask
2014-05-05, 01:31 PM
Good points all around :smallbiggrin:.

Fouredged Sword
2014-05-05, 02:06 PM
Humans are a powerful mix of easy to work with and hard to fight, as well as adaptable and willing to go everywhere. They are a nasty form of smiling insistent force with a sword held behind the back.

Elves live a long time, but they don't really have a strong impulse to leave their ancestral homes. They breed slowly as well, and don't get along well with shorter lived races they see as not as advanced due to short lifespans. They won't ever take over the world. They are easy to ignore in their woods, and there is little need to fight them about it.

Dwarves are much the same way, long life, slow breeding, ill tempted to leave their ancestral homes.

Orcs and goblins breed quickly, and want to expand rapidly, but they do so purely though displacement. An orc horde will always be fought. The other option is to die under their swords or become slaves. Every inch of orcish expansion is done the hard way, and they get pushed back frequently.

Humans, well humans are different. They breed quickly, and want to expand, but they are easy to get along with, so you don't notice the expansion at first. First comes a bunch of traders who peddle their wears. This seems all fine and good, and you learn to deal with these strange humanoids. Then, starting at a trickle, farmers and craftsmen wander in. They are few in number so you don't want to pick a fight with your neighboring kingdom of humans over it, so you let them settle. They smile and get along, so you let it slide. Now you got a problem. See, they keep trickling in, and those who are already in start to breed. A few decades and they have grown exponentially. If you try to expel them, then the next door kingdom sends their army, and all your allies get badgered by THEIR human populations, see because it is a humanitarian crisis. The human kingdom doesn't mind going to war, and everyone else knows that they can avoid the war by just staying out. It's not like the orcs, where they know they are next if the first line fails.

Soon you turn around and human culture and has supplanted your native culture, and humans outnumber your native population. Human society doesn't push other cultures out, it eats them, getting stronger as they get absorbed and consumed.

That is why humans rule everywhere they can get a foothold. The only way to prevent it is to keep away the traders, and keep away the farmers, and be strong enough to hold back the human kingdoms on your own.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-05, 02:11 PM
Gotta give props to Fouredge. That was a pretty awesome look at it. Notably, various human cultures will behave a bit differently, but that largely gives them more options to succeed--the only drawback being the cultures might be just as likely to attack each other as the non-humans.

HighWater
2014-05-05, 02:13 PM
Hmmm, couple of reasons come to mind:

- Humans prefer stories in which they can relate to the protagonists. This means that the protagonists tend to be humans. Protagonists also tend to have an edge on the competition, after all, they are special because otherwise they wouldn't be the protagonists of a book. The most common novel-structure leads to (at least some) humans being pretty good at what they do.

- Humans prefer stories in which there is at least something familiar. This means that we like to see cultural aspects crop up, as well as familiar and relatable faces... Heck, we just prefer stories that involve human culture in some way. What better way to do this than to include human culture as an important keystone in the setting? That's one sure-fire way to make the story somewhat relevant and relatable to us and our every day lives!

- It is really difficult to really invent something new. As a matter of fact, it is hard (if not impossible) to imagine something that is not a derivative of something that has already been observed. This is why we talk about "String Theory" when we discuss n-dimension physics: we imagine it as something that we know, "strings", so we can even graps what's going on. The human brain has serious trouble recognising something to which it has never seen something similar. The inverse is much worse: we are neigh incapable of envisioning something that isn't just a variation on something we already know. So, non-humans tend to be "angry humans", "logical humans", "long-lived humans", "short humans" etc. etc. As humans tend to add up somewhere in the middle of that plethora of "highly distinguished alien species", the idea that they are the perfect combination of them all tends to hit...

- We don't want SF set too far in the future (anything past the next five hundred years is generally considered too far away), and likewise humans in Fantasy need to have tech levels and progression similar to Earth Past. This means that if you want to include longer-lived races (such as elves), or already settled cultures (such as often the case in sci-fi). Humans need SOMETHING to keep up with their older siblings. Usually this results in humans being the "youngest race", compensating with enthousiasm, adaptability, intelligence, genetic destiny, whatever it takes to level the playingfield for a more believable story that still features a significant human contribution.


There are of course SF/Fantasy stories that subvert these tropes: in plenty of darker SF, humans are going extinct, hunted to extinction by species more ruthless, more intelligent. Without a deus-ex-machina or similar twist, mankind will end in these stories, wiped out from existence by other life in a way often eerily similar to how real humans have offed so many species and cultures. Even in stories that are about human superiority, such as the first HALO-trilogy, mankind is often on the losing end of a brutal war (in HALO, humans are more inventive and adaptable than their opponents, but the opponents have a serious technology and power advantage that more than offsets the human's innate advantage. Human intelligence is the only reason the war isn't over yet in these types of stories.

In short, humans do well because storytelling demands it.
Contributions to your list:
- Genetic variety is high among humans (according to Mass Effect).
- It Is Their Destiny! Featured already in Tolkien, something in the human make-up and the plans of the Gods/Ancestors/Whatever makes the human rise impossible to resist. Genetics play a strong role in a lot of SF (Stargate too, for instance), while similar but less specified patterns permeate fantasy.
- The human race is still young. Taken to be the explanation for humanity's expansion, adaptability, creativity etc. etc.

Waar
2014-05-05, 02:41 PM
Humans sometimes exist when it doesn't necessarily make sense (Starwars) but can be taken for granted as they need people similar to the readers/watchers/players so they can relate.


Why would the existance of humans make less sense in a sci-fi/space opera/high Tech setting without Earth, than it would in a fantasy setting without Earth?

OverdrivePrime
2014-05-05, 02:43 PM
Fouredged pretty much has it nailed. I think there are a few additional human strengths that are generally consistent through most fantasy and scifi:

Questing explorers
Humans have an innate curiosity about what's over the next horizon. A conspicuously high number of humans are willing to move out of their comfort zone, give up the life they're used to, and see if there's something better over the next hill, across the ocean, or in the next star system.
That same curiosity also drives humans to understand how things work. This leads humans to master magic and the sciences at a rate unmatched by most of the other races in their ecosystem.

Ambition
Humans, as a whole, are fairly ambitious creatures. In many ways, this ambition is tied to their questing nature and curiosity. Humans seek mastery of the things that they value in ways unmatched by most other species. If a human prizes magic, she will seek to master the aspects of it she values most. If a human prizes power, she will amass as much of it as possible. If a human values creature comforts, she will surround herself in them to a degree that is offensive to many other races.
Humans, in general, put a high social value on being 'the best' at various things, and competition is strongly socially encouraged and reinforced. The high social value of competition, ambition and success means that humans tend to pair their most successful individuals with one another, leading to highly successful partnerships, collaborative projects, or families.

Dead Sexy
We make this look good. :smallcool:
Thanks to the tremendous variety of human body types, there is a human look that's attractive (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513806000584) to just about everything out there. And humans, being a quietly hedonistic species, are consistently interested in new experiences and partnerships. For any species out there, there's a good chance that you'll find a sustainable population of humans that are interested in asking it out for drinks and maybe something more. :smallamused:

hamlet
2014-05-05, 02:45 PM
In the older games, humans had unlimited level advancement and class availability. Essentially, an individual elf could live many centuries longer, but a human would not cap out in terms of personal power like the elf would.

That unlimited potential is what made humans special and what gave them the edge. It was exactly the same thing as an elf's +1 to Dex and infravision.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-05, 03:02 PM
War: Well, Starwars is meant to be placed in the real world, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. With a fictional fantasy setting, either it's worked as a sort of alternate earth (Tolkien's middle-Earth) or it is entirely fictional and there aren't really means by which you can judge their choice of race (since myths and legends of the real world tend to be the basis, you expect to see stuff like people and fairies).

For a scifi setting without Earth, you need a reason for a species exactly like humans to exist in the galactic community, as well as a reason for them to be prominent enough to be part of the story.


Highwater: True points, and good additions.

Airk
2014-05-05, 03:11 PM
In the older games, humans had unlimited level advancement and class availability. Essentially, an individual elf could live many centuries longer, but a human would not cap out in terms of personal power like the elf would.

That unlimited potential is what made humans special and what gave them the edge. It was exactly the same thing as an elf's +1 to Dex and infravision.

This is an effect and not a cause. Gygax wanted a world dominated by humans, so he puts rules in to cause that, not the other way around.

This is also why demihumans could get infinite levels of thief - because thieves weren't important movers and shakers in the world, so it was okay for nonhumans to level up as much as they wanted there.

Sith_Happens
2014-05-05, 03:21 PM
[Snip]

Head of nail, meet hammer. Humans' defining trait, if you can call it that, is usually that they're just good enough at everything to always have a way of getting what they want eventually.


This is an effect and not a cause. Gygax wanted a world dominated by humans, so he puts rules in to cause that, not the other way around.

This is also why demihumans could get infinite levels of thief - because thieves weren't important movers and shakers in the world, so it was okay for nonhumans to level up as much as they wanted there.

This is hilarious in a twisted sort of way if true.

Thrudd
2014-05-05, 04:36 PM
This is hilarious in a twisted sort of way if true.

It's absolutely true. There is a whole entry in the DMG about why the game should be Human-centric and to discourage people playing as monsters. It is for all the reasons listed above by HighWater.

Inevitably, playing a monster or any other non-human race turns that thing into a human-like being. Doing that reduces the sense of danger and wonder involved in exploring the fantasy world, when you assume everything you encounter has human-like motives and behavior. Elves could be ancient beings with fey hearts and alien behavior and motives, but once a player takes control of them they are now a human with pointy ears and extra dexterity. It is no fault of the player being a bad roleplayer, it is inevitable. We literally cannot imagine what it is like not to be human. Adding more playable races in an RPG is doing nothing more than adding more varieties of humans.

Beleriphon
2014-05-05, 04:57 PM
Contributions to your list:
- Genetic variety is high among humans (according to Mass Effect).
- It Is Their Destiny! Featured already in Tolkien, something in the human make-up and the plans of the Gods/Ancestors/Whatever makes the human rise impossible to resist. Genetics play a strong role in a lot of SF (Stargate too, for instance), while similar but less specified patterns permeate fantasy.
- The human race is still young. Taken to be the explanation for humanity's expansion, adaptability, creativity etc. etc.


In fairness for Mass Effect it wasn't human in general, it was one singular human that basically saved the galaxy by combining every single bit of greatness that exist in humanity. Without Shepard the Reapers would have picked the Asari as their starting point for assimilating organics.

Sartharina
2014-05-05, 05:17 PM
The reason that I've seen most consistent is "Divine Favor"... usually at the hands of the writer xD.

I don't see how "Breed faster" works for humans, given that orcs and goblins universally breed faster than humans. Sure, they breed faster than elves and dwarves, but certainly not faster than any assorted catfolk or other animal-person, and the certainly don't breed faster than the Charr of Tyria.

I think "Balance" kind of helps, combined with a moderately fast birthrate - they not only expand, but also consolidate and defend. Goblinoids spread faster, but are also easier to wipe out. Dwarves and elves don't expand enough, or restrict their expansions. Dwarves tend to fall apart from tantrum spirals.

Knaight
2014-05-05, 05:25 PM
There's an aspect of the more numerous and more varied styles that comes up occasionally, that has yet to be mentioned - namely, that humans vary highly, and that there are a number of them, and so that somewhere out there is a human who is very, very good at whatever needs to be done. Another species might generally be better at something, but when it comes to the absolute best in the field? There's some extremely talented human prodigy, outclassing everyone else.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-05, 06:36 PM
I am working on a world where humans are in the sharp minority, being only on the small continent the world is set on for a couple centuries. They aren't the uber-versetile everyman race either, having come from a culture that combines features of colonial Spain and medieval India that came in galleons from across the impassible Wall of Storms. They did rather stir things up though, introducing gunpowder and open ocean sailing and advanced boat-building techniques. Heck, they aren't even called Humans but 'The Ship People'. They doing well for such newcomers, but they would still cause something of a stir in the more remote areas of the world.

neonchameleon
2014-05-05, 06:50 PM
I don;'t often do this but:

http://i.imgur.com/hINj1xf.png

russdm
2014-05-05, 07:43 PM
Dwarves tend to fall apart from tantrum spirals.

I am sensing a Dwarf Fortress joke occurring here.

I think humans thrive mainly because most readers expect to see humans present. If you don't have humans, it makes the story harder to understand or you really don't have someone for the audience put themselves figuratively into. How many fantasy stories don't include humans among the races? I would think few if any.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-05, 07:51 PM
I am sensing a Dwarf Fortress joke occurring here.

I think humans thrive mainly because most readers expect to see humans present. If you don't have humans, it makes the story harder to understand or you really don't have someone for the audience put themselves figuratively into. How many fantasy stories don't include humans among the races? I would think few if any.
You probably have more science fiction worlds without humans, like one of my persona favourite short stories, 'Knapsack Poems'.

veti
2014-05-05, 08:57 PM
Narrative necessity.

Many[1] fantasy worlds are glossed as "actually something related to our own world, just tens of thousands of years ago in time that's been forgotten to history and is now only dimly remembered as myth". Since we know that now, in our time, humans have "inherited the earth", it follows that humans must have out-competed all the other fantasy races.

(For instance, you could make a case that mythical "elves" are folk memory for "neanderthals".)

[1] This is sometimes explicitly true, sometimes implied (as, e.g., by the name of "Forgotten Realms"), and sometimes just inherited from worlds (such as Hyboria or Middle-earth) that have been cannibalised to create a new setting.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-05, 09:13 PM
I have my wonderments that the Wild Men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_man), or woodwose, may have being inspired by earlier hominids as well.

Sith_Happens
2014-05-05, 10:26 PM
[Really tall image that should probably be in a spoiler box]

Huh, I completely forgot about the endurance hunting thing. Being second or third-best at everything is already a formula for success, but the only way for us to not also be one of the most freakishly persistent, durable, and untiring things in a setting is for there to be extremely few viable evolutionary paths to sapience, even among bipeds.

Which seems to be exactly the case in most fiction, but oh well.:smallsigh:

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-05, 11:13 PM
Typically Humans are on par with, or second only to, the goblins or Orcs when it comes to breeding rates for one thing. Come to think of it, Orcs tend to be the closest fantasy race really in most respects (We LIKE to compare ourselves to the elves, but everyone else is comparing us to orcs :smallwink:):

But yes... I think, to sum it up...

Very high birthrate
Very high adaptability
Very high cultural flexibility (compare elves or dwarves for example. Your local wood elves would never suddenly live on the tundra riding horses, or be island-living fisher folks, or live in a huge sprawling metropolis. If they do, they turn into an entirely different BREED of elf. You get "Tundra Elf" or "Winged fisher elf" or what have you. Specifically designed by their god(s) for this purpose. Humans just... go and live somewhere).
High tech level
Aggressive
But not TOO aggresive (even if a human culture is "Proud Warrior Guys" we don't stoop to Orc / Krogan level of aggression.


And much more.

TuggyNE
2014-05-05, 11:32 PM
Huh, I completely forgot about the endurance hunting thing. Being second or third-best at everything is already a formula for success, but the only way for us to not also be one of the most freakishly persistent, durable, and untiring things in a setting is for there to be extremely few viable evolutionary paths to sapience, even among bipeds.

Which reminds me. Most mammals' hearts last for about a billion beats, give or take a little. Elephants, shrews, everything in between: their lifespans are governed by that number and their heart rate. Humans? Two billion. (Actually, I'm not sure that's even limited to mammals, it might be pretty much everything with a heart. But that's another question.)

da_chicken
2014-05-05, 11:32 PM
I like the idea put forth in Deed of Paksenarrian. Elves are creatures of harmony. They respond to external threats by withdrawing into the forest, secluding themselves and taking advantage of their near limitless lifespans to wait a problem out. They tend to avoid conflict because a loss of life is so devastating.

Humans, conversely, are creatures of conflict. They have short lives and are willing to sacrifice themselves or destroy others to get what they want. Conflict for humans is an opportunity to achieve and is not something to avoid. Humans thrive in conflict. This is what enables them to be so diverse. They are mutable rather than traditional. Humans will become what is necessary, rather than what is desirable.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-05, 11:59 PM
They come across as MAJOR Mary-Sues (in my opinion) with the one nasty elf she mets turning out to be not full blooded. Off topic, but something that bugged me a little. I liked the gnomes though.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-06, 03:38 AM
Most Talented Humans: Someone mentioned that humans would have some of the most talented prodigies. Just wanted to go into that further.

Why do we assume this? I guess this might be on the lines of humans being more adaptable/creative, and there are more mutant humans who take up savant-like qualities. In some ways though, you'd expect the best in the field to be races who specialize in the given area with their physiology/nature (Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King, once you get the demi-humans, there's really no point in hiring the humans at all--you're better off specializing the demi-humans into each of the classes).

When you have races that are meant to be more intelligent, live longer, and specialize in a craft, and when you get races like gnomes in goblins in WoW which are a people comprised of crazy inventors, you get to wonder if humans would stand out.

There might be ways around this.

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-06, 04:07 AM
Which reminds me. Most mammals' hearts last for about a billion beats, give or take a little. Elephants, shrews, everything in between: their lifespans are governed by that number and their heart rate. Humans? Two billion. (Actually, I'm not sure that's even limited to mammals, it might be pretty much everything with a heart. But that's another question.)

Our evolution has gone through some twists and turns.
Let's see what makes us special (a short list, partly adopted from TVtropes, because Lazy, partly from other sources):

When it comes to endurance, we are the masters of mammals, as shown above. Only dogs and wolves can keep up, which is probably one reason we keep them. And if we run far enough, even wolves have to give up.
Tied to that, we have lost almost all hair so we sweat much more effectively. Combined with the ability to carry our own water, endurance-hunting inches into cheating, almost.

We climb ALMOST as good as apes and monkeys, we are fairly good runners (not talking endurance) and we are competent swimmers. We do not excel at them, but no other animal is as good at all three. (Our noses are evolved to handle underwater swimming, which indicates we probably found food below the surface of lakes for awhile. As I said, our evolution is... weird).

We are actively hunting down and destroying threats, such as large predators, when we settle in an area. We did this even before being armed with anything else than pointy stícks.

We are also very diplomatic, something that comes from our primate ancestors, and we have extended that ability to other species.

We are the only species that can throw things with high precision very far. A chimp can throw rocks, but despite being stronger than us has nowhere near the speed or precision in it's throws. We have evolved special bones in our palms that makes it possible to lock our wrists in place and so transfer power from the arm to the hand much better than other primates and grip tools better as well.

We have one of the densest muscle mass in the animal kingdom. On top of that, even though chimps has more arm strength than us, their legs are far weaker, and they lack the ability to punch. Our ability to use our fists as direct precision blunt weapons is unique. We are also one of very very few species that can lift our own weight for example.

The oldest stone weapons are exactly the same age as the oldest finds of Homo Erectus (2.5 million years ago). This is not a coincidence. We, and our tools, evolved together. We became better at using them, hence creating more advanced tools, which we then evolved to use better...

We might not think much about our senses, because we compare with the best of the best, but:
Our eyesight is among the best of any mammals, and also our sense of smell is above average and so is our hearing. In fact our most sensitive sense is actually our sense of smell, despite not relying on it at all as much as hearing and sight. Our noses are still hard-wired to very primitive parts (and sensitive) of the brain, we can detect spoiled food as well as food that contains high quantities of sugar, salt and fat (all neccesary for survival once. There are recent tests that shows that a human can by smell pick between a yoghurt with 2% and 2.1% fat) very easily. Our nose is also hard-wired to our memory, which is why a wiff of a smell we recognize from our childhood triggers far more vivid memories than looking at a photograph does.

Tied, maybe, to the same source as our aquatic-adopted noses: We have much better respiratory reflex control than any other non-aquatic animal. We can control our breathing to an amazing degree for not being dolphins.

We have another very uncommon ability, the ability to recognize rythm; we are the only one (MAYBE one or two of the higher apes can do it to) species that can tell the difference between a steady rythm and an erratic one. ...And so music was born.

HighWater
2014-05-06, 04:07 AM
In fairness for Mass Effect it wasn't human in general, it was one singular human that basically saved the galaxy by combining every single bit of greatness that exist in humanity. Without Shepard the Reapers would have picked the Asari as their starting point for assimilating organics.

The Asari were cheating.

They only stayed ahead of the other races technologically, because they had a hidden prothean artifact they used to cook up new "inventions", not because they were superior in any way. The Reapers would've been pretty disappointed when they found out. Here's what Harbinger had to say on humans and asari:

“Human; viable possibility, impressive genetic malleability.”
“Human; viable possibility, aggression factor useful if controlled.”
“Human; viable possibility, impressive technical potential.”
“Human; viable possibility, if emotional drives are subjugated.”
“Human; viable possibility, great biotic potential.”
“Asari; reliance upon alien species for reproduction shows genetic weakness.”
Interestingly, he mentions situational handicaps as part of his selection criteria (Krogan are rejected for being made sterile by the Salarians, Drell are rejected for being too few, without going into other possible downsides, Quarians are judged for having a weak immune system, something that surely could be fixed as it's caused by their living in isolation...)
Basically, Shepard opened the Reaper's eyes, but the hints of humanity's (genetic) superiority are spread far and wide through Mass Effect. (Quick ascention to the Council, very rapid construction of a fleet worth mentioning, very quick to get settling rights, constant experiments on humans for their genes etc.)

@Mr. Mask: specialisation is not always a good thing, as it generally leads to a narrowing of the things one can do effectively, it reduces opportunity in favor of a higher effectiveness when a particular situation comes about. Highly specialised species are often the first to go when an ecosystem is disrupted. Take the Logical approach: if you can only see logic and reason through logic, you may unlock some secrets others could not, but you will miss anything that is based on instinct or emotion. Logical creatures will be incapable of understanding another species' going on a rampage, and without understanding, taking the correct countermeasures is extremely difficult. "Surely he will stop killing us if we just lower our weapons, that would be logical." Emotion is a powerful motivator and it disinhibits our inhibitions on restraint. An emotional person is MUCH stronger than one who is rational, so much so that this can offset advantages in technique.

In DnD, human versatiluity is expressed in skillpoints and an extra feat, which makes humans suitable to play pretty much any class and play it about as well as any race specialising in that class. Again, what happens if you build a society where each class is taken up by their own species, and suddenly that species rebels, or goes extinct through some plague of the gods. Wouldn't you be glad to have something as versatile as humans lying around that can do any function pretty much as good as any other race? Not to mention the breeding rates (highest of the civilised races).

HighWater
2014-05-06, 04:14 AM
We have another very uncommon ability, the ability to recognize rythm; we are the only one (MAYBE one or two of the higher apes can do it to) species that can tell the difference between a steady rythm and an erratic one. ...And so music was born.
Not just music, but dancing too.
Science suggests chimps are incapable of predicting rhythm, but parrots are not. Strangely, when it comes to musicality, our closest competition may come from the avian kingdom, rather than the apes.

Yes, our senses are good and we are top-dog in many things here on earth. I think it's safe to say that humans dominate Earth-wildlife for all intents and purposes. The question posed is why humans dominate fantasy-life too. :smallwink:

Eldan
2014-05-06, 04:19 AM
Another thing to put on the list of "things humans are very good at" is our digestive systems. We eat poisons for fun. Coffee. Chocolate. Pepper.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-06, 04:56 AM
With poison eaters, it should be noted other creatures sometimes would like to eat our poisons. Cats and dogs sometimes quite like chocolate despite it being bad for them. I've seen animals want stuff that's bad for them... sometimes they go crazy over it (it's a pity you can't give it to them, since it'd be unhealthy).

Necroticplague
2014-05-06, 05:33 AM
With poison eaters, it should be noted other creatures sometimes would like to eat our poisons. Cats and dogs sometimes quite like chocolate despite it being bad for them. I've seen animals want stuff that's bad for them... sometimes they go crazy over it (it's a pity you can't give it to them, since it'd be unhealthy).

That's not too horrifically dissimilar to human drug addiction, isn't it? Wanting a substance that's horrific for your health? Though even considering, we've shown pretty good ability to fill ourselves with toxins in several ways for quite a while before the body just gives up (usually with the liver being the second casualty, right after however you were getting it).

SiuiS
2014-05-06, 05:45 AM
Most fantasy is post apocalyptic, though not always explicitly so. Great civilizations Rose and Fell, and withered to dust. Now, Humanity's civilization is on the rise.

The question of "why always tell stories about the point in time when humanity matters most?" Is a valid one, but boils down to empathy. Starting off a story with this other race requires you to either play up the differences which adds a later of separation, or to play down the differences, in which case why not just use humans?

Brother Oni
2014-05-06, 07:04 AM
Another thing to put on the list of "things humans are very good at" is our digestive systems. We eat poisons for fun. Coffee. Chocolate. Pepper.

We're also capable of eating semi spoiled meat with little or no side effect (acid stomach) or we could just cook it, further processing it for more efficient calorific gain.

There's a short story about aliens who captured a human explorer and imprisoned it before he could go back and tell others where they were. They kept him well treated but otherwise imprisoned in a cell with iron bars until years later, they found the cell empty. They worked out that the human had been vomitting over the bars for years, using the HCl to slowly corrode through until he could break the bars and escape.

Now he was free, knew where they were and had a very good reason for coming back with friends.

Eldan
2014-05-06, 07:08 AM
I'm not sure that would work, but it sounds awesome.

Frozen_Feet
2014-05-06, 07:42 AM
Whenever I go crafting a setting, the answer to the title's question is "they don't". Quite often in my games, humanity is besieged by supernatural creepy-crawlies, on its way to extinction or already extinct, or didn't even exist in the first place.

In the current one I'm crafting, the answer for humanity's dominance is that they can manage in a wider variety of climates than other sapients. The furthest north is dominated by entirely different creatures, but they can't spread too far south since warm climate is unhealthy to them. Likewise, the seas are dominated by creatures living in them, but while bottom of the sea is off-limits to premodern humanity, just as well the seafolk can't really pose a threat to inland human nations.

It's easy to list ways in which humans might be better than other creatures, but it's usually just as simple to list ways in which other creatures beat us. Especially fantasy fiction is full of beings that are just better than us, period. Reasons for the decline of other species (elves etc.) are often ill thought-out and mostly a genre convention. Read: humans are the rising star because Tolkien did it. "Tolkien did it" in general is a depressingly good explanation for great many things in fantasy. However, like many other nuances of his work, many copycats forget that human dominance was preceded by ages of elven dominance, and in the end the elves did not fade away because of anything the humans did. Meanwhile, mankind was enslaved and bossed around by various dark lords.

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-06, 08:00 AM
Another thing to put on the list of "things humans are very good at" is our digestive systems. We eat poisons for fun. Coffee. Chocolate. Pepper.

It should be noted that dogs, like pigs, are immune to the bacteria in rotten meat and can just like pigs (and crocodiles and vultures, but let's talk mammals here) happily eat a pigeon that has been lying rotting on the forest floor for weeks.

...But yes, humans are quite frankly Extreme Omnivores. We can eat almost anything any other species can eat. If we remove specific outlayers (like sea slugs that deliberately eat more poisonous sea slugs) we are fairly unique.
About half the things we eat are poisonous to cats and dogs, like grapes, avocado, onions, choclolate... Our only real problem is that we are so good at "finding" food that we kill ourselves by eating too much, and too sugary or fat. Not even rats can eat everything we eat.


Not just music, but dancing too.
Science suggests chimps are incapable of predicting rhythm, but parrots are not. Strangely, when it comes to musicality, our closest competition may come from the avian kingdom, rather than the apes.

Birds from the Parrot and Crow families are some of the smartest beings on earth. Both types of birds can recognize both voices and faces; crows can remember a face for years and "bomb" only specific people they don't like if they notice them in a park. They also will move from an area where a single crow has been shot years ago and not come back until they are convinced it is safe.
Parrots on the other hand has been known to identify items both by name, shape and color, and be better at such things than apes. "Fetch the yellow key and put it in the blue box" can be SAID to a trained parrot and it will do it (if it wants to). No such tests have yet to be done on crows, however but I wouldn't be surprised if they too could do it. Crows and ravens are also tool uses, using just as intricate tools as chimps.

Edit: to answer the OP though I still think it mostly has to do with breeding rate and flexibility. Again, most Fantasy races are stuck in very specific nices. Humans says "screw nices" and steamrolls all of nature for fun and profit. We are basically Orcs without the attitude and the bad breath, and in many newer works this is actually mentioned, we are the only race that keeps up with the "greenskins" just by breedin as fast as they do, and live in the same areas they do.

Garimeth
2014-05-06, 08:43 AM
I don;'t often do this but:

Dude, that's awesome.

Fouredged Sword
2014-05-06, 08:56 AM
Also, someone mentioned infighting between human factions as a determent to our ability to be a dominant force. I agree to a point, but it can also be a strong force powering our ability to spread. First, it provides a motivating force for groups on the fringes of human controlled areas to expand outward. Also, while humans fight frequently, we tend not to preform genocide (tend, not a hard and fast rule). This means that when we fight, we don't tend to do so to the death of one culture or the other. With our breeding rate, that simply means that both sides end up more prepared to breed away or losses and go fight somewhere else with more experienced troops and generals. When the 10 or so closely tied human kingdoms stop kicking each others teeth in, and they all turn to look at a juicy piece of land occupied by someone they all hate... well, you don't want to be on the receiving end of that invasion.

HighWater
2014-05-06, 09:03 AM
Birds from the Parrot and Crow families are some of the smartest beings on earth. Both types of birds can recognize both voices and faces; crows can remember a face for years and "bomb" only specific people they don't like if they notice them in a park. They also will move from an area where a single crow has been shot years ago and not come back until they are convinced it is safe.
Parrots on the other hand has been known to identify items both by name, shape and color, and be better at such things than apes. "Fetch the yellow key and put it in the blue box" can be SAID to a trained parrot and it will do it (if it wants to). No such tests have yet to be done on crows, however but I wouldn't be surprised if they too could do it. Crows and ravens are also tool uses, using just as intricate tools as chimps.
Magpies (another crow-family member) are probably capable of self-recognition in a mirror. Magpies also have been known to troll researchers by making the "wrong choices" when they get ticked off. They identify what the researcher wants them to do, and then pick wrong on purpose when they're not in the mood. Pure gold!

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-06, 09:07 AM
Magpies (another crow-family member) are probably capable of self-recognition in a mirror. Magpies also have been known to troll researchers by making the "wrong choices" when they get ticked off. They identify what the researcher wants them to do, and then pick wrong on purpose when they're not in the mood. Pure gold!

Indeed :smallbiggrin:
Self-recognition is something that more and more species are thought to have, thought it is still very rare. Elephants definitely has it, and are also one one of the very very few beings that can recognize BONES of their own species as their own species. Others are indeed members of the crow family and large ("true") parrots (not parakeets or bugdgees). Apes do have it. The jury is out when it comes to dolphins but most points towards it.

Eldan
2014-05-06, 09:17 AM
Magpies (another crow-family member) are probably capable of self-recognition in a mirror. Magpies also have been known to troll researchers by making the "wrong choices" when they get ticked off. They identify what the researcher wants them to do, and then pick wrong on purpose when they're not in the mood. Pure gold!

I saw an awesome video once of Alex the Grey Parrot throwing a tantrum. He really acted like the average four.year-old.
It went something like this:
"Alex, in which hole does this shape go?"
*Holds up blue square*
"I want fruit!"
"Not now, Alex, first tell me where this shape goes."
"Want fruit!"
*starts shoving the board with the holes for the shapes off the table*
"Alex, if you don't do this now, I won't give you any fruit."
*grumpily solves puzzle*

Blightedmarsh
2014-05-06, 09:29 AM
You got to remember the two biggest factors in controlling human populations (famine and diseases) never play a minor roll in a setting. Either they are the major plot point ( in which case their is usually something behind it) or they just don't come up. Never winter nights being the case in point

Friv
2014-05-06, 01:11 PM
It's because of tigers.


Bear with me.

See, when humans were just dirty monkeys living in trees, they learned that if you heard a rustle in the bushes that might be a tiger, you wanted to behave like it was a tiger. Get the hell out of Dodge. If you were right, you didn't get eaten. If you were wrong, you just wasted some energy. No harm done.

As a result, humans got very good at detecting possible patterns, threats, and the like. So good that we do it all the time, even with things that aren't patterns or threats at all. We create culture, our cultures fracture over tiny disagreements with regards to a single event, we invent incredible machines because we looked at some things and thought, "I bet it could connect like that." We lie to ourselves. We plan violence against people we trust, just in case. We adapt, because adaptation is about seeing patterns and guessing where they might go, and so we spread through the world.

Elves didn't do any of that. When the ancient proto-elves were out, and saw something that might be a tiger, they froze. They went perfectly still, and perfectly silent, and studied that thing to see whether it was a tiger or not. And if it was, the elf was hidden, and perhaps the tiger wouldn't see him. And if it was not a tiger, the elf had wasted nothing - no energy, no detour from its task. Elves trained themselves to carefully, rationally, slowly consider their options, and stay quiet and unobtrusive while they did so. They don't learn more slowly than humans, but they consider every fact, carefully slotting it into place to make a cohesive whole. Elves don't think contradictory things. If an elf knows two contradictory facts, he discards one of them as false. Elves don't fragment culturally, because their cultures are the result of centuries of considered, thoughtful action. Elves imagine, but they imagine in patterns and elegance, not in bursts of insane conception. Humans frighten them, just a little bit. They are a species that is, by any rational measure, completely insane.

Orcs evolved by jumping at anything that looked like a tiger and trying to beat it to death. It's worked out pretty well for them.

Sartharina
2014-05-06, 03:16 PM
The more I think about it, the more frequently it seems that Orcs and Goblins are actually the 'dominant' race, at least in terms of population and spread. However, they tend to be universally at odds with Humans, which are the setting's point of empathy.

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-06, 03:17 PM
Okay, where is the bloody "Like" button? :smallbiggrin:

Mr. Mask
2014-05-06, 03:28 PM
Friv's post was particularly excellent. That does sound like the races in question.

It makes me wonder what the dwarves part was in it.... The bushes rustle: "The trees are attacking!" then they burnt down the forest.

Raimun
2014-05-06, 03:28 PM
The extra Feat and Skill point is just that good. Especially when it covers the whole population.

And in Pathfinder they get +2 to to an Ability Score of their choice. That is just mean.

Slipperychicken
2014-05-06, 03:28 PM
Very high cultural flexibility (compare elves or dwarves for example. Your local wood elves would never suddenly live on the tundra riding horses, or be island-living fisher folks, or live in a huge sprawling metropolis. If they do, they turn into an entirely different BREED of elf. You get "Tundra Elf" or "Winged fisher elf" or what have you. Specifically designed by their god(s) for this purpose. Humans just... go and live somewhere).

I don't know about that. A lot of human cultures value similar things. Typically, it seems to be small variations on "honor, spirituality, moral purity, wealth, selflessness, kinship bonds, fitness, power, cunning". Also, we pretty much all enjoy music, play games, wrap ourselves in animal skins (or something similar fashioned from plant matter), dance, tell stories, build dwellings, fill them with pretty things, do stupid things to attract mates, poison our brains for the lulz, kill each other with sharp things, and abandon our morals when they aren't conducive to our objectives (typically wealth, power, and helping our kin).



But not TOO aggresive (even if a human culture is "Proud Warrior Guys" we don't stoop to Orc / Krogan level of aggression.

So just a few major genocides per century, near-constant violence at all levels of society, and the fact that human states cannot exist without the threat of overwhelming, coercive force? Or that most of us who are able will shamelessly pillage and destroy each others' belongings (and even rape and murder each other) when that threat of force is absent for even a few hours? We are prone to committing the most heinous violence, in spite of our agreements to the contrary, and even under the threat of eternal torture beyond the grave.

The only real difference I see is that humans are a little more cunning and opportunistic in their violence. Also, we don't have forehehad ridges or horns (but that doesn't stop us from slamming our heads into each other).

Mr. Mask
2014-05-06, 03:37 PM
Three posts in the same minute? That's a reasonable record.


Chicken: A lot of what you said probably would apply to most sentient races, with some exceptions. Some cultures do some of those things more or less than others, to a distinguishing degree.

Orcs naturally lean toward the extreme examples of violent human cultures. They were based off the Mongols of Genghis Khan. Humans are, as you pointed out, violent and destructive.

Friv
2014-05-06, 03:39 PM
Friv's post was particularly excellent. That does sound like the races in question.

Thank you, thank you. :D


It makes me wonder what the dwarves part was in it.... The bushes rustle: "The trees are attacking!" then they burnt down the forest.


Hmm.... well, I did the other guys, so:

Tongue-in-cheek answer: Dwarves evolved underground. If they hear a rustling in the bushes, they dun goofed because they're outside their designed habitat.

More seriously:

If a dwarf spots something that might be a threat, he stops what he's doing and listens. Underground, you can't just retreat, so you prepare for a fight. Get your back against something solid, listen for movement, and prepare for trouble. Grab a loose rock to hit your opponent with, consider tactics, but don't jump forwards, because anything could be there. You could die.

If there is a tiger, or at least some kind of deadly cave tiger, it jumps out and you are ready for it. You stand your ground, you beat it to death, and you take it home to eat. If there wasn't a tiger, no harm done. You were ready, and nothing happened. If there was something tasty that ran, well, you'll have another chance.

It's sort of a blend of the other approaches. Look at the world, and see what is there, not what might be there. Then figure out the best way to use it, as quickly as possible, in case you're about to be eaten. Be industrious, be brave, be creative but only when there's an immediate, concrete benefit to creativity. It engenders a materialistic view of the world, where form and function work hand in hand, where you can afford to be patient, but never complacent. It teaches you to be a dwarf.


Halflings behave a lot like humans, but they're smaller and less able to fight back so they learn to run farther and faster, fracture more and fight back less.

Goblins all jump at the tiger in a group, pushing each other into its mouth to buy themselves time to stab it to death.

Beholders have never been in a situation where a tiger was a threat, so they don't ever consider the possibility of being eaten.

Reddish Mage
2014-05-06, 04:02 PM
I don't know about that. A lot of human cultures value similar things. Typically, it seems to be small variations on "honor, spirituality, moral purity, wealth, selflessness, kinship bonds, fitness, power, cunning". Also, we pretty much all enjoy music, play games, wrap ourselves in animal skins (or something similar fashioned from plant matter), dance, tell stories, build dwellings, fill them with pretty things, do stupid things to attract mates, poison our brains for the lulz, kill each other with sharp things, and abandon our morals when they aren't conducive to our objectives (typically wealth, power, and helping our kin).



So just a few major genocides per century, near-constant violence at all levels of society, and the fact that human states cannot exist without the threat of overwhelming, coercive force? Or that most of us who are able will shamelessly pillage and destroy each others' belongings (and even rape and murder each other) when that threat of force is absent for even a few hours? We are prone to committing the most heinous violence, in spite of our agreements to the contrary, and even under the threat of eternal torture beyond the grave.

The only real difference I see is that humans are a little more cunning and opportunistic in their violence. Also, we don't have forehehad ridges or horns (but that doesn't stop us from slamming our heads into each other).

Such a Hobbesian view of humanity. I would note that, whatever YOUR view on humanity is, the OP question is about why humans thrive in fantasy settings, and that has to do with what AUTHORS, or perhaps also the READERS, think of humanity.

Authors and readers are concerned about and think they know a lot about humanity, a fantasy world with lots of humans is easy to imagine, comes to mind readily in flights of fantasy, and readers establish a connection. Since most evil fantasy races represent monstrous tendencies and emotions, they are going to be depicted as far more brutal (and since there isn't much to identify with will tend to be one-dimensional). Other Fantasy races, since they are made up, will likely to be far more stereotyped and lack diversity, because it just takes more work to make up a very diverse set of fantastic species.

MonochromeTiger
2014-05-06, 05:02 PM
Such a Hobbesian view of humanity. I would note that, whatever YOUR view on humanity is, the OP question is about why humans thrive in fantasy settings, and that has to do with what AUTHORS, or perhaps also the READERS, think of humanity.

Authors and readers are concerned about and think they know a lot about humanity, a fantasy world with lots of humans is easy to imagine, comes to mind readily in flights of fantasy, and readers establish a connection. Since most evil fantasy races represent monstrous tendencies and emotions, they are going to be depicted as far more brutal (and since there isn't much to identify with will tend to be one-dimensional). Other Fantasy races, since they are made up, will likely to be far more stereotyped and lack diversity, because it just takes more work to make up a very diverse set of fantastic species.

the reason why humans thrive in fantasy and science fiction settings:

we are vain. we are used to being at the top and have no peers at a societal level, so we stupidly assume that this would be true if we dropped ourselves into a location with multiple other races.

threats to us physically? nah, we don't have many of those we can't deal with in real life so clearly we'd be just fine in a situation we've never had before.

issues of technology? oh no, we're adaptive, no way we could ever be behind someone else technologically for more than a few days.

diplomacy? who wouldn't love us? we love us, clearly everyone and everything else will too.

physical and mental advantage? well we're very good at things, clearly it's next to impossible for anything else to be good at everything so we'll always be on top of that, always, never mind the chance that in these settings there's a high likelihood that everyone else went through the same issues with becoming a civilized group.

it is all, without question, our vanity screaming out that we'd come out on top even when there's no evidence that we would. when we admit a weakness we immediately point out 5 strengths and say that they make up for it, we pick only our best history when making a point because we either feel shame over our worst or simply dislike the idea of not being the best.

what I want to know is why fantasy and science fiction settings so often jump into the midpoint of the rise of humanity as the dominant power in the setting but ignore the thousands of years where we don't have the technology or skills to survive these much more advanced and powerful groups. where is the reasoning for us actually making it to that point aside from the others just ignoring us or being unaware of our presence until we're suddenly on par with them?

Ravens_cry
2014-05-06, 05:04 PM
Eh, sci-fi can do stories where humans aren't the dominant life form in existence, so I don't see why fantasy can't. Fantasy can also have challenging and thought-provoking ideas and explorations within its milieu.
That reminds me, I have read a fantasy where there was no humans. It was a webcomic called Crossworlds (http://www.crossworlds.ws/?date=2007-08-06).

toapat
2014-05-06, 05:39 PM
it pretty much is just species bias that humans win. Elves would of course write themselves as the dominant force on a world, while dwarves Smith epics about dwarves. Ive never personally understood the reason why Halflings and Gnomes exist together.

IMO, im more of the opinion of Frozen Feet. Humans dont really belong in fantasy, however for different reasons. Humans give too much native perspective to it

Jay R
2014-05-06, 05:50 PM
Most game writers and GMs have lived in a world in which the dominant sapient race was human. Very few have lived in a world in which the dominant sapient race was elven, dwarven, orcish, or cauliflourish.

TheCountAlucard
2014-05-06, 06:46 PM
Humans rule the world of Exalted because the Exalted are human; at the end of the Primordial War, the gods gave dominion of Creation to their Chosen, and ascended to the Celestial City of Yu-Shan to play at the mysterious Games of Divinity. Then, together, the Exalted built a great and glorious golden First Age of Man.

Humanity has fallen far since then, but not yet past the desolation the Dragon Kings, Jadeborn, Lintha, Uddshua, Aulan, Raksha, and countless others have reached.

Fiery Diamond
2014-05-06, 08:59 PM
I saw an awesome video once of Alex the Grey Parrot throwing a tantrum. He really acted like the average four.year-old.
It went something like this:
"Alex, in which hole does this shape go?"
*Holds up blue square*
"I want fruit!"
"Not now, Alex, first tell me where this shape goes."
"Want fruit!"
*starts shoving the board with the holes for the shapes off the table*
"Alex, if you don't do this now, I won't give you any fruit."
*grumpily solves puzzle*

Of course, you also have to remember that Alex was a complete prodigy. Waaaay smarter than normal for other parrots of his species. Still awesome, though.


Most game writers and GMs have lived in a world in which the dominant sapient race was human. Very few have lived in a world in which the dominant sapient race was elven, dwarven, orcish, or cauliflourish.

There's a singer who clearly has.

"I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower!"

(Kudos if you get the reference!)

SixWingedAsura
2014-05-06, 09:49 PM
One word, and it explains why we're the dominant species on Earth: Adaptability.

We may not be the fastest, the toughest, the longest-lived or the smartest, but we're a jack of all trades who can very quickly (Less than a generation or so) becomes specialists in any field we so choose. We are a fighting race and that doesn't change in fantasy worlds. We can be any class, tend to learn just about any kind of magic and when pushed are terrifying foes. We're ruthless, and because we are so short lived in comparison to the other races, we get things done NOW and worry about the consequences later.

WE. ARE. BADASS. :smallcool:

VoxRationis
2014-05-06, 10:18 PM
One word, and it explains why we're the dominant species on Earth: Adaptability.

We may not be the fastest, the toughest, the longest-lived or the smartest, but we're a jack of all trades who can very quickly (Less than a generation or so) becomes specialists in any field we so choose. We are a fighting race and that doesn't change in fantasy worlds. We can be any class, tend to learn just about any kind of magic and when pushed are terrifying foes. We're ruthless, and because we are so short lived in comparison to the other races, we get things done NOW and worry about the consequences later.

WE. ARE. BADASS. :smallcool:

Except the reasons we are dominant over the fauna of the real world would be completely separate from the reasons behind any dominion over other sapient, culturally adapting, technology-using creatures we would have in a fantasy setting. A dwarf or elf can make different clothes and different tools to fit different situations just as well as humans. They have full language, full human intellect, full human manual dexterity (and arguably better, in the case of elves and halflings). As far as we know, no other of the hominin species we outcompeted in the real world had all of those things (the Neanderthals might have come close, but their technology shows reduced innovative capacity and there are thoughts that their vocal apparatus might not have allowed full human speech). In D&D, there are nonhuman races that are longer lived than we are (elves and dwarves), shorter lived than we are (goblins and kobolds), smarter than we are (grey elves, among other things), dumber than we are (orcs), less energy intensive than we are (halflings and gnomes), etc.
A lot of fantasy works have humans rising ascendant because the works are meant to be in a fantastic past of some sort, so it is inevitable that humans become dominant; we already know what the future of the setting will be. Others, like A Song of Ice and Fire, have humans as dominant because they want a grittier, more realistic setting, one in which fairy-tales give way to reality. But in a D&D setting, there's no real reason why it has to be that way, because it's not meant to be a fantastic past necessarily.

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-07, 01:39 AM
So just a few major genocides per century, near-constant violence at all levels of society, and the fact that human states cannot exist without the threat of overwhelming, coercive force? Or that most of us who are able will shamelessly pillage and destroy each others' belongings (and even rape and murder each other) when that threat of force is absent for even a few hours? We are prone to committing the most heinous violence, in spite of our agreements to the contrary, and even under the threat of eternal torture beyond the grave.

The only real difference I see is that humans are a little more cunning and opportunistic in their violence. Also, we don't have forehehad ridges or horns (but that doesn't stop us from slamming our heads into each other).

I have a lot to say about this but I can't because we are edging (quickly) into IRL politics. Let's just say that I don't agree.

As for the argument above me...
The point is that elves (or Asari or whatever) is that we drive them nuts by not thinking in long term (in their way to see it). We might think two generations ahead. If we are old and wise. Most humans think 10-20 years ahead when measuring consequences, tops. For an elf, two generations is what? 3000 years? Same for an Asari. It totally makes sense that for a species who has that long a lifespan, the fact that human kingdoms can fall, rise and fall again within their teenage years is... unsettling.

Sartharina
2014-05-07, 01:41 AM
So just a few major genocides per century, near-constant violence at all levels of society, and the fact that human states cannot exist without the threat of overwhelming, coercive force? Or that most of us who are able will shamelessly pillage and destroy each others' belongings (and even rape and murder each other) when that threat of force is absent for even a few hours? We are prone to committing the most heinous violence, in spite of our agreements to the contrary, and even under the threat of eternal torture beyond the grave.

The only real difference I see is that humans are a little more cunning and opportunistic in their violence. Also, we don't have forehehad ridges or horns (but that doesn't stop us from slamming our heads into each other).Actually, in most cases acts of violence make up less than a fraction of a percent of a human population. They just tend to make headlines.

Also - Genocide comes naturally to everyone in fantasy.

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-07, 01:51 AM
Actually, in most cases acts of violence make up less than a fraction of a percent of a human population. They just tend to make headlines.

Also - Genocide comes naturally to everyone in fantasy.

Indeed. And historically (IRL) complete genocides are very very rare. Occupation, slavery, absorbtion etc of different cultures yes. Complete genocides are VERY rare.
But as a tangent to this... It seems, in most fantasy, that humans are the only non-evil species (orcs / goblins / whathaveyou) that wages war againt their own kind. EVER. Elves NEVER have civil wars, or wars between elven kingdoms, because elves (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CantArgueWithElves). :smallyuk:
Dwarves are more warlike but still manages to mostly fight orcs. Or if to show they are "bad" and "greedy" they sometimes attack elves. But again, never any inter-dwarven wars.
But this is sometimes viewed as an advantage. We are quite simple better warriors. Or at least better SOLDIERS. Our armies are bigger, more disciplined, and more advanced. Very very few elven armies ever have siege machines for example.

Sartharina
2014-05-07, 02:00 AM
Part of the reason humans fight each other so much is because they don't have a universal language, and have dramatic variation within the race.
Elves are too hippy/live & let live/walk away instead of fight to wage war on each other. They also tend to be more focused on rivalries with goblinoids and orcs.
Dwarves are all part of the same interdimensional empire, spanning from Khaz Modan to Moria to Koganusân(Or what's left of that nightmare) and beyond.They also tend to be more focused on rivalries with goblinoids and orcs.

Mastikator
2014-05-07, 02:36 AM
Indeed. And historically (IRL) complete genocides are very very rare. Occupation, slavery, absorbtion etc of different cultures yes. Complete genocides are VERY rare.
But as a tangent to this... It seems, in most fantasy, that humans are the only non-evil species (orcs / goblins / whathaveyou) that wages war againt their own kind. EVER. Elves NEVER have civil wars, or wars between elven kingdoms, because elves (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CantArgueWithElves). :smallyuk:
Dwarves are more warlike but still manages to mostly fight orcs. Or if to show they are "bad" and "greedy" they sometimes attack elves. But again, never any inter-dwarven wars.
But this is sometimes viewed as an advantage. We are quite simple better warriors. Or at least better SOLDIERS. Our armies are bigger, more disciplined, and more advanced. Very very few elven armies ever have siege machines for example.

Drow vs high elves.
Duegar vs hill dwarves.

But yeah, humans are the most imperialistic, expansionist and inventive of the various races. It's mostly because other races are humans with hats (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats), it's not fair to compare humans with non-humans to be honest.

Slipperychicken
2014-05-07, 02:37 AM
Actually, in most cases acts of violence make up less than a fraction of a percent of a human population. They just tend to make headlines.

Also - Genocide comes naturally to everyone in fantasy.

Yeah, I guess you guys are right. I overstated the importance of violence to try to make a point.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-07, 04:41 AM
Which human population? Overall, the world is made up of a lot of non-combatants, kids, etc.. Then you get full blown militant groups like the Lord's Resistance Army who not only put their kids through military training since the time they can stand, but kidnap others' kids to brainwash them and make them do just that.


I don't like to be contradictory, but I don't agree with dramatic variations being a major factor. I figure we all saw the broadcast of the Rwandan genocide. Many have difficulty telling Tutsi from Hutu. The NAZIs, similarly, hated Slavs, killing them in number. Major differences are not necessary, and sharing a language is sadly ineffective in keeping the peace.

Sorry about that tangent.

As for how that applies to humans vs. stuff like elves... Well, with lower breeding rates and a tendency to not spread out, you'll see much less cultural variation. Since many early human groups do seem aggressive, and elves seemingly are less so, they're likely to form stronger bonds with their kin who are more similar, and won't need to struggle against each other if they have plenty of land to go around (due to low expansion rates). Humans branch out more, and end up isolated from their original cultures, forming new ones and losing their old attachments.

Having more cultures isn't always a good thing for dominance. If the elves are skilled diplomats, they can play human cultures against each other. If humans naturally shared one culture, able to unit against outside threat--they'd be pretty unstoppable (imagine the combined military power of Russia, America, China, and Europe--you'd need aliens or something to stop them).

Still, multiple cultures has some benefits. If demi-humans are good at squashing one culture of humans, they won't necessarily succeed against another. Humans are pretty quick when it comes to survival, and cultures which stand a chance of being wiped out will consider evolving to match the situation, retreating, or even joining another culture. The idea of wiping out all humanity with even twice the power of Rome... it seems impossible. You'd need vastly superior tech ala aliens, or something like nukes which is going to take you out too. Even if your goal is less than wiping them out, humans are sort of everywhere... they have political power by virtue of mass alone.


Of course, that still leaves the question of stuff like orcs, goblins, kobolds. Might get to that in another post.

Eldan
2014-05-07, 06:24 AM
I think I'll have to steal that idea for a campaign. Elves - or some other non-human race, or perhaps an assortment of several of them, working together - sending diplomats and spies to the various human cultures to get them to war with each other, so the humans won't turn on them, instead. Conveniently get some diplomatic messages lost. Sabotage political marriages. Organize border conflicts.

hamishspence
2014-05-07, 06:35 AM
But as a tangent to this... It seems, in most fantasy, that humans are the only non-evil species (orcs / goblins / whathaveyou) that wages war againt their own kind. EVER. Elves NEVER have civil wars, or wars between elven kingdoms, because elves (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CantArgueWithElves). :smallyuk:
Dwarves are more warlike but still manages to mostly fight orcs. Or if to show they are "bad" and "greedy" they sometimes attack elves. But again, never any inter-dwarven wars.

Forgotten Realms had a bit of inter-elven warfare - and it wasn't just elves vs (future drow) either.

Mostly in the distant past though. Same with Dwarves and the "deepspawn wars" (each side using hordes of dwarf clones - the deepspawn is a monster that produces clones of the things it eats).

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-07, 06:58 AM
As others have said, the real reason is because the writers are human, and the people reading are human.

In fact, IIRC, at one point, Black Library actually prevented people writing non-human centred stories for their 40K and WFB novels for that very reason - they've relented a bit recently (the two Eldar series, for example), but most of the books are still humans only.

(For those familiar with the 40k universe, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether Marines still count as human :smallwink: ).

About the only contrary positions are things like Planet of the Apes - humans as the downtrodden masses thanks to some event or circumstances, with another race in control, but part of the reason they're repressed is because they'll eventually rise up and overthrow their masters.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-07, 07:10 AM
Eldan: Note that the humans will be doing exactly that themselves--against other humans. The politics of the world wars come to mind, countries working out which side to join and each side trying to convince others to join them. It's pretty standard diplomacy.

Admittedly, I made it sound more like they would be plotting and inciting war, which is more unusual. That could be an interesting premise.


Snow: ...Yeah, I was about to say, "The Marines count as human?" The marines are about as relatable as any of the other nasties of 40K, I figure.

Jay R
2014-05-07, 09:35 AM
One word, and it explains why we're the dominant species on Earth: Adaptability.
<snip>
WE. ARE. BADASS. :smallcool:


We are quite simple better warriors. Or at least better SOLDIERS. Our armies are bigger, more disciplined, and more advanced. Very very few elven armies ever have siege machines for example.


Don't get cocky. There are forces beyond our control.

On our world, the only reason the human race is dominant instead of, say, Tyrannosaurus Rex, is that we haven't gotten our meteor yet.

SixWingedAsura
2014-05-07, 11:08 AM
Don't get cocky. There are forces beyond our control.

On our world, the only reason the human race is dominant instead of, say, Tyrannosaurus Rex, is that we haven't gotten our meteor yet.

Sure, but in a fantasy world, same thing could be said of Elves and Dwarves. Meteors own everything in the end.

Alberic Strein
2014-05-07, 11:47 AM
Nah, meteors got nothing on our fantasy selves.

Odds are one third of the whole human race will be actively TRYING to summon the damn thing, or worshipping it like a god, while a half dozen misfits will spectacularly have it bounce back, or destroy it altogether.

But yeah, every interesting thing was said already.

1) On a sci-fi scale, we are just damn bloody tough.

2) Adaptability is the name of the game.

3) We are at just the right temperature for world domination.

Good Vs Evil : The standard dwarves and elves are not often evil. They have peculiar offshoots of their race that is evil, but most of the mainstream elves and dwarves in fantasy settings are rather on the "good" scale.

Orcs, goblins, said offshoots of dwarves and elves, and undead are, conversely, dead on the evil part.

Ambition is evil.

Noone EVER will ally themselves will an evil race without a good backup plan to genocide them afterwards. Because they are Evil. And when you don't want to die, whether you're good, neutral or evil yourself, you fight off evil.
Good races find no appeal in world domination, as long as they have their home turf, they're happy with it.

Humans are good enough to make good allies, and evil enough to want more lands, which will feed a bigger population, which means a more numerous army, which is a very good step towards victory and world domination.

Order Vs Chaos : Ambition is Chaos. A huge population growth is Chaos. Civilization, federated states, and technology are Order.

Humans still have their ambition, and their growth rates are second only to the green skins. However, fielding an army ten times the size of your opponent doesn't mean absolute victory (like it should) in the face of superior warfare. An army of one thousand can defend rather effectively a castle against an army of ten thousands, as long as war machines are not brought up in the equation. So we have the numbers to own Order aligned terrestrial beings (dwarves, elves, etc...) and the technology and sufficient knowledge of warfare to fend off those who outnumber us (green skins). We are also (most of the times) Lawful enough to keep a somewhat effective chain of command, while dark elves will spend half their time killing their bosses to become the new bosses (and then being killed in turn) and green skins generals are simply the biggest, baddest warrior of the group and even if they were good generals, don't have the troop versatility to outmaneuver humans.

So yeah, we created a world in which we are the new overlords.

VoxRationis
2014-05-07, 11:47 AM
Of course, most of these ideas of "humans" are very Eurocentric; most human societies through history and prehistory would have no advantage of numbers or disciplined armies compared with, say, bands of goblins, kobolds, or orcs, much less compared with dwarves or elves.

toapat
2014-05-07, 11:56 AM
imagine the combined military power of Russia, America, China, and Europe--you'd need aliens or something to stop them

{{scrubbed}}

and realistically any aliens wanting to colonize would probably just wipe out everything that mattered in a very rapid massive parallel strike against our strategic commands, millitary manufacturing, and high concentrations of millitary hardware.

Friv
2014-05-07, 12:25 PM
Of course, most of these ideas of "humans" are very Eurocentric; most human societies through history and prehistory would have no advantage of numbers or disciplined armies compared with, say, bands of goblins, kobolds, or orcs, much less compared with dwarves or elves.

Eurocentric? The earliest empires were Middle Eastern, and disciplined armies were a huge thing in both East and South Asia, plus quite a bit of Africa.

Anyway, history showed that when a culture that didn't have disciplined armies met a culture that did, they got rolled over in a hurry. One assumes that in a setting with more species and cultures packed more tightly together, that process would just happen a lot faster.

Eldan
2014-05-07, 12:43 PM
Indus valley, even before the Middle East.

Sartharina
2014-05-07, 01:08 PM
And even in Central America, and the original Zimbabwe.

VoxRationis
2014-05-07, 01:36 PM
Yeah, yeah, obviously there were large, centrally organized states outside of Europe. But there were huge swathes of the globe without such institutions over equally huge periods of time. I was just saying that "human" does not necessarily equal centralized kingdoms with lots of farming and agriculture and a large population base.

Fouredged Sword
2014-05-07, 01:44 PM
I think that is an advantage as much as anything. So there are centralized human kingdoms with large armies and agriculture. Great, they spread out in a particular manner. What more, there are headers and hunter gatherer societies that function completely differently and will spread their own way. A threat that can wipe one out or stop one in it's tracks will barely slow another. By hook or crook, people will live anywhere.

LibraryOgre
2014-05-07, 03:49 PM
The extra Feat and Skill point is just that good. Especially when it covers the whole population.

And in Pathfinder they get +2 to to an Ability Score of their choice. That is just mean.

Incredibly system-specific. How does that explain human hegemony in pre-3e FR? Or Fading Suns, where you have races that are entirely psychic with histories older than our species?

MonochromeTiger
2014-05-07, 04:19 PM
I think that is an advantage as much as anything. So there are centralized human kingdoms with large armies and agriculture. Great, they spread out in a particular manner. What more, there are headers and hunter gatherer societies that function completely differently and will spread their own way. A threat that can wipe one out or stop one in it's tracks will barely slow another. By hook or crook, people will live anywhere.

except there's not really such a huge difference between them that a force capable of wiping the floor with one will somehow fall apart just because another advanced their weaponry with ranged combat in mind instead of charging in and stabbing.

a civilization that's ahead of all of humanity in technology, magic, or physical abilities is still ahead of all of humanity in that way even if the different human groups are advanced in a different way. being a jack of all trades and being adaptable have been the main points I've seen in favor of humans logically being in control in fantasy settings but the thing is another race doesn't need to beat us at everything to be a more dominant race, they just have to beat us at warfare or diplomacy.

for warfare we depend on it being a battle of attrition with a long lived but slow to breed race, even if it is though that relies on a good ratio of kills for humans against whatever group is being fought, something that can't be guaranteed. we also keep thinking that a higher birth rate in humans than most fantasy races means we'll be able to swarm them, that requires the enemy to not be aggressive enough to wage a war with the actual goal of killing humanity, or at least the part of humanity that's attempting to expand into their land. you go up and engage the elves or the orcs and find out that they've lasted this long because they know how to fight, they use their various skills to push you back and oh look, our quicker breeding does nothing because the children are still children.

for diplomacy, we can't even manage to unite our own race but we're expecting to come to power in worlds where there's maybe one major division in another race's entire history? and alliances between races that are so old it's practically an ancestral debt? not likely to favor us there.

TeChameleon
2014-05-07, 04:32 PM
Eh. *handwaggle*

I honestly think that Alberic Strein had the right of it- as a general rule, humans are better-organized and more advanced than the races that outnumber us, and significantly outnumber the races that are more advanced than we are. And humans' endless adaptability? While it could be argued that it is primarily focused on survival, funny thing is, humans tend to view 'removal of threats' as part of surviving. Long story short, any race that has 'unleash the most horrific violence you are physically capable of producing' as a fear response is not one to be trifled with.

And there's also, well... this (http://comic.nodwick.com/?comic=2005-05-18).

MonochromeTiger
2014-05-07, 04:40 PM
Eh. *handwaggle*

I honestly think that Alberic Strein had the right of it- as a general rule, humans are better-organized and more advanced than the races that outnumber us, and significantly outnumber the races that are more advanced than we are. And humans' endless adaptability? While it could be argued that it is primarily focused on survival, funny thing is, humans tend to view 'removal of threats' as part of surviving. Long story short, any race that has 'unleash the most horrific violence you are physically capable of producing' as a fear response is not one to be trifled with.

And there's also, well... this (http://comic.nodwick.com/?comic=2005-05-18).

for those seeming advantages to matter we have to have reached the point where they're true, which is some time after the question of "why do humans thrive" would have to be answered. it's mixing up cause and effect to use power humanity would have after becoming a dominant power to explain why they instantly overcome far more powerful, advanced, and populated civilizations from a much more primitive point in their personal history and become the big race of the setting.

TeChameleon
2014-05-07, 04:56 PM
Well, how often do fantasy settings have primitive human tribes bang into the elven kingdom of Magi'nukia or whatever? I was under the impression that the races often didn't interact much until they were all relatively established in whatever form of medieval stasis they would occupy for the rest of eternity. So the comments about organization vs. population tends to hold true, to the best of my knowledge.

And even if there were far greater empires running around before the humans were an emergent power, they almost always get themselves wiped out in one fashion or another, be it through digging too deep and taking a Balrog to the face, deciding they didn't like the specific angle of point in one another's ears, not supervising their wizards closely enough and hearing the 'oops' a bit too late for it to matter, or just someone spiking the gods' ambrosia.

Basically what I'm saying is that, in my experience, humans don't have to overcome the greater empires in fantasy settings, since they either carved out their own niche simultaneous to the rise of those empires, or else the greater empires went 'kablooey' of their own accord.

MonochromeTiger
2014-05-07, 05:05 PM
Well, how often do fantasy settings have primitive human tribes bang into the elven kingdom of Magi'nukia or whatever? I was under the impression that the races often didn't interact much until they were all relatively established in whatever form of medieval stasis they would occupy for the rest of eternity. So the comments about organization vs. population tends to hold true, to the best of my knowledge.

fantasy settings generally don't have primitive human tribes at all, they just skip directly to "well they're now a powerful middle ages or steampunk civilization that everyone else thinks is just too darned amazing to challenge". that's part of what begs the question of how they actually deserve that role when there isn't a logical track on how they got it in the first place aside from the authors just wanting to say humans are awesome.



And even if there were far greater empires running around before the humans were an emergent power, they almost always get themselves wiped out in one fashion or another, be it through digging too deep and taking a Balrog to the face, deciding they didn't like the specific angle of point in one another's ears, not supervising their wizards closely enough and hearing the 'oops' a bit too late for it to matter, or just someone spiking the gods' ambrosia.

so the defense on more powerful civilizations just letting someone take what is very likely their lands to start up a rivaling civilization is...balrogs? most of those examples account for one city or settlement being wiped out, not the entirety of their civilization. and each of those races usually comes back to try and retake lost lands, which they would then find fledgeling human societies squatting in and likely assume that those humans are at least partly at fault leading to a massacre.



Basically what I'm saying is that, in my experience, humans don't have to overcome the greater empires in fantasy settings, since they either carved out their own niche simultaneous to the rise of those empires, or else the greater empires went 'kablooey' of their own accord.

because, again, writers often look for a hand wave that doesn't actually answer the question of how humanity went from just starting out to being the big power in the setting. which is also why humans magically avoid each and every one of those 'kablooey' situations until they're powerful enough to just handle them, or why the ancient advanced civilization that should be able to handle them easily chooses to not care when humans decide to mess with and steal things that they've built.

russdm
2014-05-07, 06:06 PM
Frankly, you can blame the writers that followed Tolkien. Tolkien was the first to establish humans as the dominant race and every ( well nearly so) fantasy/scifi writer followed suit. Tolkien did explain why and went to extreme lengths to establish why it was happening and following that thru. For other writers, they just didn't bother with it. In Tolkien's stories, the elves have lost their time, the world has moved past them and it is now the time of men to take up the story. In Other Fantasy, the elves are there and not active but they are there. And then the elves do more and eventually you end up with multiple elven kingdoms for no reason.

I think what needs to change or what really is why humans thrive is simple: Empire forming. Humans are more likely to create kingdoms and empires and the like while being also willing to expand their lands at the expense of other races. Yes, the elves have their land, but the local human kingdom has decided to claim parts of it. Short of full war, which no elf would commit to, the humans simply push out the elves. In the case of Dwarves, they tend to provide valuables to humans in the form of weapons/armor/money/jewels. Elves tend to complain at humans and then ignore them.

Orcs and their fellows (Goblins, etc) tend to only form tribes at best and rarely a group of tribes might unite but it just doesn't stick. That's why Obould Many-arrows and his kingdom in FR was such a major change/effect, because it was a kingdom of orcs which practically never happens. Orcs aren't empire builders, they may engage in massive hordes but they don't forge empires.

In Warcraft's Azeroth, the humans are one of several powerful races and really aren't able to expand. Orcs have a kingdom and so do a few other races, so humans aren't really better than others. In most space stories, humans are only one of many races/species and are rarely the big dog on the block. Then there is the fact that plot takes a hand. Its why the Klingons or Romulans haven't taken out the federation yet, because plot says it needs to be there. The Deep space nine mirror universe shows what happens when Humans aren't a dominant race, they tend to become slaves.

Elves don't bother with empires or simply can't make them work. Dwarves rely on smaller areas like clanholds and only unite behind a particularly impressive dwarf every so often. Humans will expand and enlarge their realms, the other races won't. Another point is that the elves are using humans as meatshields against orcs. A large human nation between your elf community and a rampaging tribe of orcs means easy living for years. Neither side will drive the other off but the orcs will have tribe harming your elf community.

Another thing is that humans will compete with each other which only the evil races do. Elves and dwarves don't have the all or nothing competitions that humans have. A pair of dwarf clanholds won't fight it the way a pair of human villages might.

Humans are a strong race mainly because we build empires and compete, the races that won't do that with us are steadily falling behind and biggest race hit is Elves. They have learned quickly that manipulating humans is far more profitable than opposing them. Dwarves are figuring this out too and so are other races like gnomes and halflings. Its really easy to manipulate humans compared to anyone else.

veti
2014-05-07, 09:27 PM
fantasy settings generally don't have primitive human tribes at all, they just skip directly to "well they're now a powerful middle ages or steampunk civilization that everyone else thinks is just too darned amazing to challenge". that's part of what begs the question of how they actually deserve that role when there isn't a logical track on how they got it in the first place aside from the authors just wanting to say humans are awesome.

To be fair, they don't generally say anything about primitive nonhuman tribes either. Elves, dwarves etc. seem to have sprung into existence with, pretty much, their current tech levels, whatever they are. In Tolkien's case these are basically gifted to them by the gods - which is fine, but then the same explanation will do for humans.

If you assume that small numbers of primitive humans drifted into lands that were already populated, or at least bordered, by pre-existing elven and dwarven civilisations, then it makes sense that they would quickly copy and adapt the technologies of those cultures, so far as they're able. That's what civilisations do in our world, after all - once invented, technology gets shared around pretty quickly.

MonochromeTiger
2014-05-07, 09:50 PM
To be fair, they don't generally say anything about primitive nonhuman tribes either. Elves, dwarves etc. seem to have sprung into existence with, pretty much, their current tech levels, whatever they are. In Tolkien's case these are basically gifted to them by the gods - which is fine, but then the same explanation will do for humans.

the problem with lacking an explanation on primitive societies for any race always annoys me but at least when a setting says "oh the elves and dwarves and orcs have been around for centuries longer than humanity and are considered elder races" they aren't also saying "but look here, there's an even older and more advanced race that would likely take issue with how those races became powerful, but let's ignore that completely because otherwise it messes with our setting's fragile illusion of multiple believable societies". there were already several comments about how expanding seems built into humans but we just assume that there won't be cases of underestimating others or expanding too far into another race's territory?

and even "they were gifted that level of technology by the gods" seems like a cheap way of saying the setting creator couldn't take the time to have semi-reasonable growth of a race's society in terms of technology, philosophy, or physical growth. it's a literary "I don't have to tell you, this is this way because I say so accept it".



If you assume that small numbers of primitive humans drifted into lands that were already populated, or at least bordered, by pre-existing elven and dwarven civilisations, then it makes sense that they would quickly copy and adapt the technologies of those cultures, so far as they're able. That's what civilisations do in our world, after all - once invented, technology gets shared around pretty quickly.

how? with what facilities? with what knowledge of the basic form, function, and material involved in those technologies? they show up and for all intents and purposes steal the technology, all unnoticed until they're done? the actual owners or creators of the technology fail to take note of a strange new group of bipedal creatures walking around staring at them while they work or fight and building houses on their back yard?

for that matter who's to say first contact is with one of the traditional "nice" races that always winds up being considered an ally or just reasonable enough not to come to blows? who's to say first contact is even initiated by humans? if we're going traditional, orcs show up because no one's taken this little corner of the world yet, find a bunch of humans, oh look easily conquered workers that no one knows about or cares enough about to go save. technical and societal advancement then becomes dependent on not becoming more of an annoyance than a useful source of laborers, and maybe, maybe getting out without a "humans are just superior to everything else in the setting" situation of magically getting all the weapons and overpowering them.

edit

honestly I'm not against humans getting power in fantasy, I just want to see one actual reason they would that doesn't boil down to the belief that we're just inherently better than everything no matter how many advantages we throw other races. adaptability, yes amazing we're adaptable but that instantly means nothing else can be? durable, ok so we can beat some animals in our ability to bounce back from injury, getting chopped up by an angry dwarf probably isn't one of those injuries. technology, that hinges on whether we can actually copy the technology of another race which we take for granted because we've been able to copy things other humans have made.

most of the things I've seen in favor of us coming out on top in a societal comparison would put us at odds with others that, as I said, would be much more advanced and much more established than humanity. it would be us going out and starting as the weakest ones in the group and very likely having to claw our way past even the races we so often claim would be allies in fantasy. it would not be humanity advancing in a vacuum until it's ready and willing to face the world, it would not be humanity taking advantage of being the only ones with the chance to evolve and learn in the ways it did. it would definitely not be as easy and absolute as most of the reasons I've seen in favor of it say.

Alberic Strein
2014-05-07, 11:37 PM
Sure, Monochrome Tiger, here are a few examples. They might not satisfy you, but hey, they're a step forward :

The Viking approach :

Unlike a number of fantasy settings, sometimes the world is not limited to Pangaea. Other continents exist, for example, and could be populated with other races. Elves, dwarves and gnomes on one side, and humans on another. Elves will claim to be the most ancient, as they live the longest and nobody can really dispute the claim, but since they don't actively compete against the dwarves, the closest thing they have to a rival, one remains in his forests and the other under his mountains, maybe a few trade centers and such, maybe a few quick skirmishes, but with their breeding rates they can't allow themselves to lose too many people. Meaning their "wars" would be on a very small scale. On the other continent, humans. Humans compete with each other. Sometime after becoming self-aware, one of them is going to ask himself "why should my glory be ephemeral?" and will coin the shift between true nomadic societies and sedentary ones.* Or at least semi-sedentary. And once that has started, things change very quickly. The advent of farming, etc... And of course relationships with other newly created villages. Your new rivals. And you need to stay ahead of your rivals. Culturally (a number of invasions were infact cultural in nature) and technologically. Technology is extremely important. Not only it makes a very big difference in warfare, but it is also the only way to counteract having smaller exploitable lands. Having good breeding rates do nothing for you if you can't handle the population growth.

*Actually, since elves and dwarves are sedentary by nature, you could explain all three races coming to life at the same time, but humans being slow on the uptake, and only starting civilization, to have recognition for their race after the others, thus appearing as a "new race".

Anyway, sometime down the drain, someone will invent boats. Someone will invent boats that can reach farther than the others. Someone will decide to go explore the faraway land they can only see while they're far at sea. Then some particularly smart man will invent the rudder, to go straight. Some other smart man, way later, will invent the compass. And then many, many men, some smart some not, will try their luck on the high-sea. And find our fantasy continent.

But what would happen ? Well, elves and dwarves would see some foreign traders washing ashore, starting to colonize those useless plains nobody wants anyway. You take exception to them taking a peculiar place? They will apologize, shift their encampment to the less hospitable place, and settle there. They are few, and they don't seem dangerous. Better, they come with interesting gifts from a civilization completely different from the one you know. So trade will flourish between the races. Then, one day, the elves and dwarves wake up one morning to see kingdoms born on their shores, and getting closer to the inlands. Kingdoms with population that dwarves theirs.

You can see where this is going. This example, which you can find in a number of fantasy novels hinges on races being separated until humans become sedentary and reach the point of the greek or macedonian empire. Where they can actually stand a chance against the stagnating empires of the elder races. And when they meet they don't start slaughtering each others, but trading. And through trade humans start catching up on their technological deficiencies. As well as spinning a new, deadly use on some harmless elven/dwarven inventions. Also, unless you reach a crazy level of technology, black powder weapons' main selling point is the fact that the training to become proficient in them is extremely short. Something humans can use a lot more than dwarves. If they even have gunpowder at all.

There, you have one reason.

The Warhammer approach:

Humans, long story short, were no threat. Useless small tribes, striving desperately, trying to survive orcish attacks. No threat for the two very powerful hard punchers, dwarves, and elves. Then elves and dwarves go to war, pretty much destroy each other in the greatest war ever, which the elves lose and they are forced to leave the continent and remain on their Kingdom-Island.

Dwarves are also in a pretty sticky situation. A terrible earthquake ravaged them and they are losing their cities one after the other to beastmen and green skins. They are simply not enough to fight on all fronts and... Oh? What's that? Some tribes of able-bodied sapient metahumans? Humanity you call yourself? Ok, here is the deal, we give you weapons you can't even dream of, and you go fight our enemies with us. Deal?

Oh yeah deal.

Add to that a messiah for the humans that federate the tribes in one single powerful empire, and "pof" in a few decades, you have an empire that, if they had nothing better to do, could stand to elves and dwarves.

In this example, the keys are 1) Empires crumble, leaving places for new emerging powers and 2) Humans develop fast.

Technology is an issue in fantasy worlds. New contestants should have some very big issues closing the technological gap. They would, since putting your hands on something that was already researched is faster and more cost efficient than researching the damn thing. But the gap would also be ever growing, technology always advancing, and getting your researchers up to speed on a race competiting level would be a very slow process. But hey, medieval stasis for everyone! Once you got your hands on iron > steel > gunpowder, you're pretty much set for forever.

This, of course, advantages humans, perhaps unduly.

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-08, 02:11 AM
for warfare we depend on it being a battle of attrition with a long lived but slow to breed race, even if it is though that relies on a good ratio of kills for humans against whatever group is being fought, something that can't be guaranteed. we also keep thinking that a higher birth rate in humans than most fantasy races means we'll be able to swarm them, that requires the enemy to not be aggressive enough to wage a war with the actual goal of killing humanity, or at least the part of humanity that's attempting to expand into their land. you go up and engage the elves or the orcs and find out that they've lasted this long because they know how to fight, they use their various skills to push you back and oh look, our quicker breeding does nothing because the children are still children.

for diplomacy, we can't even manage to unite our own race but we're expecting to come to power in worlds where there's maybe one major division in another race's entire history? and alliances between races that are so old it's practically an ancestral debt? not likely to favor us there.

I think you have misunderstood a number of arguments.

1. Higher birthrate does not mean "we" think we can zergrush them. It is just an explanation to how we can spread and occupy new territory quicker than other races. In fact "can" is the wrong word... "have to" is better.

2. We don't have to unite our own race to be good diplomats. We don't even want to. We make different kind of deals. But is this a bad thing, really? For individual humans definitely. But it allows us to have an extremely diverse culture.

3. Seriously, if you disregard things like "magic materials" (Mithril and just simple "chainmail +2" humans are virtually always portrayed in fantasy as having the better gear. Elves have leather armor and light chainmail. Dwarves have heavy chainmail. Humans have leather armor yes, but only on scouts and archers. We have chainmail, but only on light infantery. Most humans portrayed in fantasy tend to go to war in full or half plate armor. We have siege machines (something orcs tend to copy), heavy cavallery, pikemen...

HighWater
2014-05-08, 02:50 AM
Sometime after becoming self-aware, one of them is going to ask himself "why should my glory be ephemeral?"

I lol'ed

I think it's safe to conclude that most fantasy/sf writers didn't really think through why humans would be able to compete. Mostly because "Humans are able to comepete" was a given. Often, when they do try to explain it, it makes it harder to believe (because it's hard to explain), so most just handwave it instead.

Can we think up explanations that go beyond "humans are just better at... stuff"? Sure! You'll always run into someone who just doesn't buy it though.

I must note though, that some posters seem to assume that the (fantasy) world is a full and rigid place and that, if someone moves in, someone else must move out. In our current state-of-civilization, we are at over 7 billion individuals. In 1800 that number was only one billion. Around the year 1000 it was stuck at 300 million (and that's right after a burst of population growth) and pre-agriculture it was just a couple million. That means there's plenty of space for squatters/upstarts, especially if they occupy different biomes (such as elves and dwarves do). Another assumption is that races will exterminate younger races just because they are of a different race, even if they don't actually take up any useful space or don't form a threat. This is a very dim view of racial relations.
All of that is besides the point though:
Fantasy is absolutely riddled with inconsistencies and plotholes. The trick is to not look too closely.

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-08, 03:34 AM
Another thing is that we happily breed with anything... And not only in Fantasy and Sci-Fi.
All humans (IRL) outside Africa has at least 10% Neanderthal genes on average.

OverdrivePrime
2014-05-08, 05:41 AM
Another thing is that we happily breed with anything... And not only in Fantasy and Sci-Fi.
All humans (IRL) outside Africa has at least 10% Neanderthal genes on average.

Don't forget, a number of humans have tiger blood (http://www.paultastic.com/showpage/Charlie-Sheen-Boom-Winning-Tiger-Blood-Best-Quotes)! O__O

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-08, 07:32 AM
2. We don't have to unite our own race to be good diplomats. We don't even want to. We make different kind of deals. But is this a bad thing, really? For individual humans definitely. But it allows us to have an extremely diverse culture.

In fact, if you want technological advancements, not being good diplomats helps in a way - better metals for weapons and armour, and new weapons and armour (when enemy soldiers armour becomes too heavy for arrows to pierce, invent the crossbow, then potentially firearms), food preservation techniques to lengthen your armies supply lines and keep them in the field in the late-autumn and early winter months, insulating clothing to extend that into mid-winter, or allow them to operate effectively in colder regions, and so on.

Elves are generally portrayed as peaceful, only going to war when pressed. So they could well have hit a technological peak whilst they were still warlike, but since they became more pacifistic, their technology and as a result, their society hasn't really moved on from there. While they may still be more technologically advanced than humans, they're not as far ahead as they once were.

Dwarves on the other hand are generally portrayed as traditionalists - what was good enough for their great-great-great-grandparents is exactly what they should use. Stagnation through choice rather than through inactivity.

While Halflings, Gnomes etc are generally portrayed as not physically powerful enough to extend their sphere of influence.

Meanwhile, the evil races (Orcs, Goblins etc) tend to be portrayed as anarchic and only ranking up behind powerful leaders who can smack their subordinates skulls together - if the leader falls, their lieutenants will fight amongst themselves to become the new leader, and ambitious ones will be looking to subvert those above them and stamp down on those below.

Humans meanwhile are fairly belligerent - both against other races and against themselves (so constantly improving their technology), relatively fast breeding, and while individually ambitious to an extent, will band together for the common good and the better leaders will accept input from those beneath them without seeing it as an attack on their position.

MonochromeTiger
2014-05-08, 08:06 AM
I think you have misunderstood a number of arguments.

1. Higher birthrate does not mean "we" think we can zergrush them. It is just an explanation to how we can spread and occupy new territory quicker than other races. In fact "can" is the wrong word... "have to" is better.

which pushes us to expand, which pushes us into conflict with the many races who are in the land we're trying to expand to, which puts our plethora of weaknesses against other races that would be more established in the setting into play.



2. We don't have to unite our own race to be good diplomats. We don't even want to. We make different kind of deals. But is this a bad thing, really? For individual humans definitely. But it allows us to have an extremely diverse culture.

it proves we're not even capable of making ourselves stop killing each other, tell me, when you can't get another human to stop shooting at you how do you convince an elf or dwarf or orc who you may have noticed is not human and as people are very happy to say in our favor, does not think like a human.



3. Seriously, if you disregard things like "magic materials" (Mithril and just simple "chainmail +2" humans are virtually always portrayed in fantasy as having the better gear. Elves have leather armor and light chainmail. Dwarves have heavy chainmail. Humans have leather armor yes, but only on scouts and archers. We have chainmail, but only on light infantery. Most humans portrayed in fantasy tend to go to war in full or half plate armor. We have siege machines (something orcs tend to copy), heavy cavallery, pikemen...

and again you disregard that I'm talking about how we get to the point where we have better equipment. seriously, if you disregard that I mention several times that what interests me in this discussion is how we live through the beginning stages of human civilization when most settings have the other races already at their high points there's still the fact that we'd be outnumbered, outgunned, and without a friend to back us up before we get to the point where we can invent heavy armor or siege weapons or specialized roles for soldiers.


from everything I've read and seen us surviving to be a superpower in fantasy depends on one of the two reasons alberic strein pointed out: us somehow being completely ignored by sheer luck until they've advanced, or lucking into being handed everything they need to jump ahead to full strength. short of those two events we're late to the show and likely to tick off a race that can and will wipe us out or force us into service to avoid getting too many nuisances or rivals out in the world.

Sartharina
2014-05-08, 09:00 AM
Humans thrive because they're the balance of Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, and Orcs. They live long enough to achieve greatness, but short enough to not stagnate. They have toolworking ability surpassed only by Dwarves (And elves in some settings), and animal rearing ability surpassing orcs. They also have a defensive mindset only surpassed by dwarves, ambitions of conquest surpassed only by orcs, and environmental mobility surpassed only by elves. The result is a species that is inherently tough, resilient, and invasive.

Humans tend to ally with dwarves pretty quickly in most settings - probably trading for weapons and stone/metalworking knowledge in exchange for animals and taming knowledge, and serve to protect the foothills of the mountains dwarves inhabit. They're also faster than dwarves, allowing them to work as messengers and provide other speed or spread-related services. They don't compete with dwarves for living space or food. This gives them enough of a 'head start' to be able to survive attacks from elves, each other, orcs, and hostile dwarves, since once they have weapons and armor, they can largely fend for themselves and begin innovating on their own. They are probably initially antagonistic to elves due to deforestation and logging, but the only environment they really compete for or with anyone is the Orcs. Once they have dwarven steel and stone backing their hounds and horses, the Orcs and goblins (Who lack dwarven-quality weapons) who compete with them for plains and flatlands go from "Dangerous menace to everyone" to "Simple to dispatch for cavalry and soldiers, but a danger for unguarded civilians". Orcs continue to keep pressure on humans to improve their reactivity to invasion and develop superior fortifications, mobile armies, and better weapons and tactics. Eventually, Orcs get pushed to undesirable badlands, and are forever relegated to "transient nuisances", leaving humans to fight each other... until the Orcs, in desperation, find powerful gods to lead them to victory over the humans, take their land back, have their women decide they don't like being treated as cattle by the men, band together into legions, develop advanced weaponry and armor to kill their gods, and I think I lost where I was going with this.... but by the this time, humans are more than able to fend for themselves against the Elves.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-08, 09:00 AM
I don't quite get what the problem is. The main problem human have is orcs.

When it comes to elves and dwarves, they don't expand quickly enough to be a concern to humans, or humans a concern to them. If some human tribes decide to attack the elves and dwarves, those tribes will be smacked down, hard. Does this mean the elves and dwarves will be incited to go on a genocidal rampage against all other human tribes? No. It just teaches other tribes that messing with elves and dwarves is a bad idea, and they tend to keep away from it.

When most of the good land is occupied, then the humans who need/want to expand have three options: One, try to take land from demi-humans, which may well result in failure, loss of life, loss of resources, destruction, or enslavement to the side you fought. Two, they could attack another human tribe, which is probably easier--they're likely to pick this option (as so humans will keep shuffling their territory). Three, they could have a high population density.


Orcs are the main problem. If they're similar to humans, they should also try to branch out, and if they breed faster they should branch out faster. Even though orcs aren't bright, you'd expect them to be proficient with warfare. The main way to get around this is to say humans managed to advance their technology ahead of the orcs before the orcs could overpower and replace them. If the humans can maintain better relations with the elves and dwarves, that could certainly help. I mean, which would you prefer to infest your backyard? Humans, or orcs? The elves/dwarves will prefer the less psychotic species which is more willing to cooperate, so if elven/dwarven support is necessary for human survival, it is a possibility.

Alberic Strein
2014-05-08, 09:21 AM
Nah, Monochrome Tiger, the Elder races are good, remember? Genociding and enslaving others is on the far end of the alignment, and very untypical of them. It's typical human behaviour. Also, elves and dwarves usually have no reason to cross the ocean. They don't have the "ambition" to lust after more lands and they don't have the need to, with their slow growth rates. Elder races typically remain in their ancestral homes, with little contact with the outside world. With that in mind, it's not that unnatural for them to ignore many races until the other races meet them through their expansion.

So, there are a number of circumstances which can allow humans to come into power besides the "being out of their reach" and "messianic influence" :

1) Kingmaker scenario. Dwarves and elves tend to be... Rather hostile with each other. Primitive humans are smart enough to use weapons, understand warfare, and don't want to destroy the world as a whole (usually). While not being physically inferior and having some good numbers and breeding rates. Meaning that arming the primitive humans and making allies of them is going to pretty much mean victory over the other elder race. And once this initial push is given, humans can go ROMAN EMPIRE on their asses.

2) Ragnarok scenario. An offshoot of the kingmaker scenario. If evil exists, if the end of the world as we know it is coming, then recruiting humans (for reasons aforementionned) and raising their tech level so they can be useful will mean that on the long term humans will suffer less debilitating effects from the war, as well as taking the lion's share of the battles. Dwarves have some crazy artillery, elves are awesome at defensive battles in forest, but the rest of the times, humans will fare as well as the others, and they have numbers (as well as being able to replenish those numbers more easily). So, once Evil is sealed away, humans will be on the fast track to world domination, and the other races will be licking their wounds far too long to be relevant. They will still be awesome defensively, but the rest of the world is ours.

3)After-The-End scenario. Elves and dwarves owned. They even owned humans, whom kept hiding in their caverns. Then dwarves and elves fought each others and wounded each others pretty badly. Their ruined advanced cities becoming the primitive humans' new homes, scavenging technology, culture, etc... And once the two empires are back at full strength? Say hello to the human MACEDONIAN EMPIRE that appeared (from the other races' point of view) overnight and from absolutely nowhere. Enter Kingmaker scenario.

4)Spartacus scenario. You know what? Let's say the elvish diviners did their damn work for once. Humans = Bad. Let's enslave the hell out of them! So they do. Humans can't exactly object, with their pitiful technology. Problem: They learn. Generation after generation, humans leech off their masters' technology. And their numbers grow. And one day finally the shackles are broken and the masters are enslaved in return. Karma. Because numbers+ability to learn=awesome. Also, you can never find "all" members of a particular race. Their will always be some that avoided capture. And they reproduce. Fast.

5)Then let me be evil scenario. Ok, enslaving didn't work. How about genocide? Well, you always miss a spot. And humans, while primitive, never were stupid. It will become a bloody, horrendous attrition war. Except that, at the end of the day, a single elven death is worth many, many men's death. So, after some time, humans will get better at it. They will become more efficient, more skilled, they will adapt, they will learn. Then suddenly, it won't be 50 human deaths for 1 elf, it will become 20, 10, 5... Five men for one elf is pretty sweet. Also, the more they know about elves and dwarves, the more they can actively sabotage their mating process. If elves can only reproduce once per year, they will focus their attacks at that time, to reduce the number of enemies being born. Baby slaughtering is evil, but in this situation, we would. And in the end, if there is not a very very big gap in intellects, a slow race (number&reproduction) cannot win against a fast one. Orcs are no issue because they don't infiltrate fortresses, they don't make alliances, they don't trade with other groups, they don't burn down hospitals, they don't poison wells, they don't fight dirty like humans can do. And while humans can shoulder the losses, their enemies cannot. Also, we are quite weak to Faustian deals. Being mean with the human race is a very good way to end up with some very pissed, god empowered Chaos elites. Which could become the great Evil. Of course, some tribes wouldn't succomb to the temptation. In which case, see Ragnarok scenario.

Of course, if we deal in absolutes (and only siths do), we, humans, stand no chance against elder races. But there are always survivors, always exiles, and once they have a taste of technology, a common enemy, and feel offended in their ego, humans can be the bane of any number of elves and dwarves.

Also, the only damn reason we humans cannot stop killing each others is... Who would we kill then? We NEED to kill. For lack of rivals, we split, the right hand calls the other one a rival, and they start fighting. If other races existed, we wouldn't kill each others on the scale we do today. Mankind cannot unite for lack of common enemy. See the creation of Germany by Bismarck. He almost litterally gathered every single man with lands in a single room, and then convinced them the French were their sworn enemies. And suddenly, all the independent "kingdoms" (for lack of better word) united and formed germany. Nothing more was needed to have those feuding nations stop their ridiculous squabbles and unite.

it's just tha we simply don't have a mankind sized enemy today.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-08, 10:18 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Mr. Mask
2014-05-08, 11:23 AM
I don't know if I'm allowed to edit a scrubbed post. Basically, I used an analogy that featured real-world entities (didn't feature politics, so I don't see the problem of it).

To rephrase, can you picture Rohan and Harad teaming up against the elves in Lord of the Rings? I think they'd much rather fight each other, unless the elves did something to really irritate them.

Fouredged Sword
2014-05-08, 11:38 AM
It takes two generations to bounce back from a really big war. Say half the male population dies in a ten year period (25% of the total population). That is a really big war. Well, it takes 30 years for the humans to bounce back. That is about the time it takes for breeding rates to spike and the population spike to replace the missing labor and soldiers.

That means that humanity can go all out in a war every 40-50 years.

Elves mature in 110 years, so they bounce back every 200-250 years. The humans can do better than 4 times that. This boils down to simple math. The humans can afford to loose 3-4 times more than they win, so long as they loose and force opposing losses at the same time, and no fair fantasy setting has one side so overpowering that they don't suffer losses.

The math is that the humans push out the other race.

NOW, there are some possible ways around this. If human populations are kept small and contained, then this won't work. They cannot incur enough losses to create a buildup of loss on the other side.

In the end, humans are the backbone of the force holding the orcs at bay as well. An orc matures in 14 years, so humans are VERY close behind them. The orcs have to maintain MUCH closer parity in losses to beat the humans in a war of attrition. I think in the absence of humans, orcs would slowly but surely push the elves and dwarves out of the best lands.

The rate that a population replaces it's members is very important to how aggressive the culture can be when it comes to loosing population. Elves and Dwarves CANNOT afford to loose 10% of their population every decade or so. Human cultures would just have more babies and not notice. I think that someone calculated that a random person on earth could die once every second, and it would barely move the population growth of the planet. That is not accounting for the previous generation accounting for the looses ahead of time and having more kids in preparation. In a war footing human population, a six to twelve kid family will be normal, rather than the 2-3 kid family you see today.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-08, 11:49 AM
There are some ways around this for the elves. Defeat and subjugate human factions so they can't attack you again, and so they can act as buffers against other factions. And if they're good enough at politics, they won't need to keep going to war with humanity, they'll find compromises that may even benefit the elves. Another point is that if the elves are ahead by as much as say the Romans and the barbarians, it is possible to defeat their enemies with surprisingly few casualties.

That being said, while there are ways around what you pointed out, you still make a solid point. The elves can't afford to have protracted warfare with humans of comparable power, that decreases their options and can lead to their downfall (or lead to a situation more beneficial for humanity).

Fouredged Sword
2014-05-08, 12:03 PM
The problem with subjugation is that it isn't a long term solution with a population that breeds faster than you do. Yes, you stop group A of humans from invading your civilization, but group B of humans just got a red carpet into the underbelly of your society and can now simply outbreed you and topple you from the bottom by supplanting you as the dominant species in your culture. I don't see that as a long term solution to stopping your race from being overrun with humans.

Also, I would point out something about the Romans. Rome fought the barbarians, but in the end, Rome was sacked by the Vandals, and all the various Goth factions marched from one side of Rome to the other before claiming land and settling. Rome didn't win the war in the end. The barbarian tribes could simply take greater losses than the Romans. The Romans lost more and more resorces chasing barbarians further and further north, eventually to collapse from within under the financial and human cost of their campaigns.

That is a gross oversimplification, but there is a reason Europe is dotted with GOTHIC architecture more than ROMAN architecture.

VoxRationis
2014-05-08, 12:15 PM
A REALLY gross oversimplification. Rome had an enormous population base, much more than invading barbarian societies had. Furthermore, Gothic architecture was invented long, long after the invasions that ended the Western Empire; it was called "gothic" by Renaissance and post-Renaissance artists in order to disparage it in their comparisons to Classical art and architecture.

Fouredged Sword
2014-05-08, 12:25 PM
I was admitting that it was a gross oversimplification, but I wanted to point out that it isn't a really true statement to say Rome won. Rome fell, and when it fell, the Gothic hordes where still standing. A larger population, more advanced technology, better logistics... It all fell to a group who was simply better able to survive and wait out the conflict. Just surviving means that you can wait for a change, ether an outside force challenging the greater power, or even something as mundane as a plague or bad harvest can tip the scales of empire.

Humans are good at surviving, and bouncing back before everyone else can, and taking that opportunity for everything it's worth, and then still surviving when everything falls apart all over again.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-08, 12:48 PM
Rome's fall didn't have anything to do with breeding rates, really. Roman logistics, technology, and other advantages were also questionable if they were present at all by the time of the "fall" (depending on where you consider it).

The situation you describe is not definite. The elves might just as well destroy Human A's army, make them swear allegiance, then trounce Human B. They mightn't have two significant enemies at once. Human B could attack, be held off by the elven fortresses and defences, and then be crushed by a returning elven army or a second levy. There are also plenty of things that could wipe out the elven nation, from disasters to clever military actions to etc..

As for bouncing back, it's questionable if this is an innately human quality. Many animal populations have done a good job of bouncing back from hardship, as well as plants. Human communities mean that when bouncing back, it appears more dramatic than wildlife.

Knaight
2014-05-08, 01:38 PM
I think it's safe to conclude that most fantasy/sf writers didn't really think through why humans would be able to compete. Mostly because "Humans are able to comepete" was a given. Often, when they do try to explain it, it makes it harder to believe (because it's hard to explain), so most just handwave it instead.

I'd say that this is likely true about Tolkien clones, but outside of that - particularly in space fantasy, which is where aliens are much more likely than true sci-fi - there tend to be explanations. For instance, in The Damned humans are much more capable of violence than most species, and also much more adaptable. However, there's an explanation for it - by the standards of most of the aliens, Earth is a death world. Prior to first contact there's a discussion which pretty much comes down to the aliens saying "What the heck is this? Earthquakes? Volcanism? Tidal Waves? What sort of bizarre geology is going on here? Seriously, there's intelligent life on this rock? How?". Granted, human dominance is questionable in that series to begin with, but by book 3 there's a pretty solid argument to be made.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-08, 02:23 PM
Some of the scifi still leaves it questionable. Earth tends to be late to the space race in many settings, but somehow manages to compete. I guess there could be comparisons with the rate the Japanese modernized after their borders were pried open, or other occurrences; if you have aliens willing to be hired out to help them modernize.

Blightedmarsh
2014-05-08, 03:20 PM
In Celtic mythology the sidhee; god like even precursors where defeated in a straight fight by human colonists and literary banished from the lands. Its about the only occasion in myth where mortals take on the gods and win; overthrowing them. Another thing about the elves of folklore is that they are mortally weak to iron and iron weapons.

Aedilred
2014-05-08, 03:42 PM
I was admitting that it was a gross oversimplification, but I wanted to point out that it isn't a really true statement to say Rome won. Rome fell, and when it fell, the Gothic hordes where still standing. A larger population, more advanced technology, better logistics... It all fell to a group who was simply better able to survive and wait out the conflict. Just surviving means that you can wait for a change, ether an outside force challenging the greater power, or even something as mundane as a plague or bad harvest can tip the scales of empire.
Gothic architecture is really irrelevant, given the time frames... I mean, Romanesque architecture was all the rage beforehand, and that was already long after the fall of Rome.

Whether Rome won politically - probably not. But culturally, Rome absolutely won the war. The Goths, Vandals, Franks etc. who invaded western Europe and north Africa weren't for the most part trying to smash Roman civilisation, they were trying to join it. The Goths and Franks in particular built a sort of pseudo-Roman society where they tried quite hard - at least for a while - to maintain what was left of Rome in their lands. What did for Italy, ironically, was the attempt by the (eastern) Romans to retake it, which smashed up the Gothic state and caused its collapse. In the eastern empire, the same sort of thing happened with the Arabs and Turks - while they retained a lot of their native traditions, of course, they still became quite Romanised quite quickly. And when Charlemagne finally succeeded in uniting the west under his banner, it was the traditions of Rome he called on, as its successor. After the fall of the eastern Empire, it was that title the Tsar claimed for himself as their rightful successor, with Moscow becoming "the Third Rome". Ideologically, Rome lived on a lot longer after Augustulus - even Constantine - finally gave up the ghost, and arguably it's still with us.

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-08, 03:59 PM
Rome didn't win. Seriously. And the "barbarians" didn't try to join it, they adopted parts of the culture. Partly forced, partly because hey, that's cool.
That is a very different thing.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-08, 04:13 PM
Considering the extent Napoleon went to to associate himself with Rome... I'd say Rome did very well on the cultural impact front.

And those barbarians did want to be part of Rome. One of the major forces that laid Rome low was their own army made up of foreign barbarians. They wanted to be part of Rome... but the Romans couldn't afford to pay them, and sort of tried to murder their beloved leader. Things went a little sour.

Endarire
2014-05-08, 04:15 PM
Because humans write the fiction we so adore. Human authors want to make human characters special.

Aedilred
2014-05-08, 08:09 PM
And those barbarians did want to be part of Rome. One of the major forces that laid Rome low was their own army made up of foreign barbarians. They wanted to be part of Rome... but the Romans couldn't afford to pay them, and sort of tried to murder their beloved leader. Things went a little sour.
Yup. Alaric was - or had been, prior to his disillusionment with the command structure - a Roman general, after all, who had lived for thirty-odd years in Roman territory. The Visigothic wars against Rome in the late 4th-early 5th century came after they had already settled peacefully - or attempted to - in Roman provinces but were subjected to abuse by their provincial governors. Odoacer took power with the support and cooperation of the Senate. Theoderic was a Roman Consul. Even Attila had close ties to senior Roman figures (most notably, Aetius).

Fouredged Sword
2014-05-08, 08:15 PM
Well, that again is what I was talking about. Once you open your doors to a group, they merge with you. In a situation that has multiple races, humans will ether find a way to merge with the culture of the other race, or the human will push the other race out and take what they want.

People spread, ideas spread. Genes spread. It would be very hard to STOP humans from spreading everywhere.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-08, 08:34 PM
Well, it wouldn't be much different than with different groups of humans. Largely, it'd depend on the policy the elves had. If they had a lot of open spots humans could take that humans want, humans are going to take them. If elves have rules that only elves can be in certain positions, the place will remain pretty elfish until the rules are changed (if the population became vastly human, they're likely to change in their favour). If they're rather isolated to outsiders, like early Japan and China, the human population will never get too extreme since the humans that come to live there won't be major settling types (mercs, academics, diplomats, priests, that kind of thing). A variation in these factors between cities/regions could lead to interesting population race densities.

Erik Vale
2014-05-09, 06:51 AM
One point against the logic used for humans deserving top dog spot.

Hobgoblins [in DnD] and their evil equivalents.
They end to be just as smart, tougher, with various other benefits, but evil, lacking in creativity, despite being at very similar tech bases. [Equal or slightly lower]

In DnD for example, these species are generally held back with 'they're evil, so we all band together', 'luck' [read, heroes], or 'To busy subjugating another race at the moment, come again later.'
In ME going with Batarians, they lose out because they have the idiot ball... And are reaper affected [I'm not sure if that extends pre ME1 but relevent]. And there's councils ability to roflstomp them but that asside. I think they're noted somewhere as being slightly dimmer though, but that may be them holding the idiot ball, them being affected by reapers, or the Heagamony only allowing the most propagander affected out of the Headamony.
And Turians [also similar], lose out because of politics alone, but are somehow fearing a race that has 3% of it's race militarised, whilst having near 100% militarisation themselves, sure humans might pack a punch, but that big of a punch? [Oh, and heroes, don't forget heroes].


As for humans on top spot story:In a Heroes [6th ed currently] game I play in Human's aren't on top. There are two races actively combating for top dog place at the moment, Humans, and The Horde [A conglomerate of sam species [can interbreed despite differences, don't think spawn lack ability to procreate, technically same species as humans by same definition but Meh].

Humans basically won over Dwarves/Elves for the reasons given, breeding rates. They simply out breed the Elves and Dwarves [and Giants but they are less prominent], and were silly enough to let them grow and develop steel. The Horde however were stuck at hunting/farming and slash burning, most of their stuff being stolen... Despite having full plate and arbilasts [big crossbows] but that may be magic/goblins at work, oh, and Orgs which are like Ogre's but scary smart and magic, and very rare except not because plot].

The Horde, beings generally stupid and stuck at pre-agriculture [aggressive, average would have int equiv of 6-10 ranging from ogre to goblin], never really were a big thing, and eventually humans had their empire, and then got complacent [silly humans]. Then, because gods [I think] Orgs came around and there were inteligent charismatic leaders who were able to control their anger better. They bred up, and Elves/Dwarves/Giants said 'Hey, we're tired of being pushed back. Let's lend a hand.'

And so, with Elven trickery [they were easily able to keep horde out, too stupid] as well as Human stupidity and Dwarf/Giant oppertunism, Humanity fell. Humanity lacked the skill of the Elves/Giants/Dwarves, as well as the Horde's/Giant's/Elve's/Dwarve's physical/magical abilities... Oh, and the Horde reproduced faster.

Timeskip, Humanity is only just ready to push back again, but is mostly huddling in fearful towns and castles under threat by constant Horde raids. And despite human counter offensives, the horde has just assembled a army of overkill [I think we calculated it as somewhere under 12500 Orcs, Goblins, Ogres and Orges with mages of varying power at the estimate of near 100 notable ones I think] rallied to curbstomp humanity under Org Guidance, and only the hordes willingness to align with dragons [alienating the Dwarves massively] and their willingness to try the underhanded and attack even in peace talks [alienating the Elves, though I think they'll soon go back to hiding] Gives Humanity any allies.

Oh, and I [as in, me literally as a player], recently taught them the Roman turtle shield wall when I managed to make the magical equivalent of a bomber, so it turns out Org's are either freaky smart, or Horde stupidity is overplayed, take your pick... However I did give them time to set it up properly hoping that they would be exhausting themselves doing it... I was wrong.

Loxagn
2014-05-09, 08:27 AM
Dead Sexy
We make this look good. :smallcool:
Thanks to the tremendous variety of human body types, there is a human look that's attractive (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513806000584) to just about everything out there. And humans, being a quietly hedonistic species, are consistently interested in new experiences and partnerships. For any species out there, there's a good chance that you'll find a sustainable population of humans that are interested in asking it out for drinks and maybe something more. :smallamused:

This is a great point too, I think. I've often joked that between dragons and humans they've borked everything in the Monster Manual, but when you look at all the half-breeds out there...

Fouredged Sword
2014-05-09, 08:48 AM
This is a great point too, I think. I've often joked that between dragons and humans they've borked everything in the Monster Manual, but when you look at all the half-breeds out there...

Just going to leave this here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7d/Jack_Harkness.jpg/220px-Jack_Harkness.jpg

Avilan the Grey
2014-05-09, 09:02 AM
(Stuff).

One minor point: The Turians do not fear us, per se, they RESPECT us, because they got a bloody nose from a much smaller military force than they expected.
Humanity in Mass Effect really aren't better than the Turians, actually. SHEPARD is, but Shepard is unique among humans and aliens alike.

edit: Regarding the point above... According to some sort of poll (I don't have the link and I can't google it at work for obvious reasons) 40% of human adults (both genders) would entertain having sex with a sexbot (phrasing was "robot", but...)

TeChameleon
2014-05-09, 03:16 PM
Honestly, as far as I can see, the only reason for the argument of 'humans win because of either outbreeding or out-advancing the other races' only really fails if you assume all the races being stuffed into a (relatively) tiny area, bonking into one another while the younger races have no chance to compete, and then initiating hostilities. There's no guarantee, or even likelihood, that that's gonna happen. Sure, if it did, then humans are hosed, and we've got the 'slave uprising' scenario or 'world without humans scenario', most likely, but if it doesn't, there's no real reason that humans can't go on to be a dominant power. Since really, even if primitive humans do bump into the 'elder races', why should the elder races care? "Oh look, some weird chunky, round-eared guys want some of the bits of land with no trees/freakishly tall, scrawny, beardless guys want some territory aboveground. Oh well. Whatever's wrong with them, it's not our problem."

*shrug*

No idea, but I'm not seeing all that big a problem here. Humans thrive in fantasy because that's what we do in real life. Stick us someplace, and in remarkably short order, we'll have adapted and gotten on with our lives. I don't see how adding in other intelligent races makes that different somehow, unless it's a Conquistadors-vs.-Incas situation, with us as the Incas.

With all that said, I have written a few stories that touch on the theme- one a short, silly piece about an alien warrior race attempting to conquer Earth, only to discover that, unlike (virtually) every other intelligent species discovered to date, humans are not a tiny, timid prey species with zero aggressive instincts. Cue spectacular, ludicrous failure as humanity spreads across the galaxy, cheerfully oblivious to the fact that a ten-year old with a slingshot could conquer their pick of about three-quarters of the known worlds as an after-school outing. And also baffled horror on the part of those aliens who attempt to figure out Earth media and come across things like Independence Day, Aliens, Predator, War of the Worlds, and so forth :smalltongue:

And on the flipside of that, I've written a fantasy novella (NaNoWriMo thing from a few years back) where the humans of a fantasy world are on the ragged edge of going extinct, courtesy of having the weakest magic of any of the intelligent races and a food chain that resembles less a 'chain' and more a crazed blender (seriously, if you just dumped all the fantasy monsters into one ecosystem, everything would be trying to eat everything, up to and including random bits of the landscape being carnivorous). The humans do eventually rally a little, but only because my plot dumped a modern (with bits of supertech added) town from a superhero world, including a handful of superheroes, almost on top of them.

It can honestly work either way pretty easily. The writer doesn't even have to think about it that much.

Zale
2014-05-09, 08:53 PM
The gods love a good joke as much as anyone else.

Erik Vale
2014-05-09, 11:10 PM
Yes, because Humans brought about Lolcats through UMD. [I believe someone has that quote floating around]