Humans in rpgs

[More Fun To Compute]

-About human evil,even if there are evil humans in most RPGs,the one who saves the day is almost inevitably human.

Not so sure about this. Going back to the Lord of Rings, one of the main themes is that humans were saved by non humans like the Hobbits, Elves and Gandalf the angelic mystical space alien. In D&D, the most popular heroic characters is a dark elf in the official fiction. It is a cliche in D&D that the most popular player character is the the heroic dark elf who is rebelling against the evil dark elf society.

 

[Axolotl]

We're, pound for pound, one of the weakest species. Even a full grown man who has mastered martial arts would be flattened by an adolescent gorilla. We are natural cross-country runners though; a key component to our hunting strategy was running our prey down to exhaustion.

A gorilla is hardly a fair comparison in terms of strength. But for versatillity, humans live on evry continent on the planet, we can survive extreme altitudes and extreme temeratures both hot and cold. And while we aren' particularly strong the human body is amazingly durable and can stand extreme abuse/

Yes, thank you for agreeing with me.
/snark

I was disagreeing on a semantic level. Two swords beat one sword. As long as the one isn't a claymore or the like.

 

[Imat]

Unfortunately you're looking at "most RPG's" as being set in some modern or future universe, when in reality the vast majority of them take place in a more medieval setting, the setting of the vast majority of fantasy worlds. In said fantasy worlds humans ARE the most open intelligent lifeforms. They can do pretty much whatever they want to do because they have no inherent specialization (They weren't born in a swamp as lizard people where they adapted to diseases, they weren't born to constant warfare and lesser intelligence (Stereotyping) like the Orcs, etc). They choose their own path.

It takes place in a more European society, first of all, because fantasy worlds are based more off of a medieval time period than, say, the Bronze Age. This means that most of the action is taking place in the European areas (Not counting battles of the Crusades and various African skirmishes). You then get the more British European because the game developers are English (Or Japanese, but they can do whatever they want). And swords are prevalent because they are prevalent in fantasy realms. I'm sure they were also prevalent in the Middle Ages, such as the claymore and various other swords. Swords were easy to produce and easy to train, unlikely more unwieldy weapons such as the polearm/mace/axe etc. Thus we get swords.

And on to magic users. Really? Humans using magic doesn't resemble modern man? Possibly because modern man doesn't use magic, that magic doesn't actually exist? Come now, you can't possibly be complaining because humans in a FANTASY world are using magic. Besides, it's a well known fact that ELVES are portrayed as magic users. Humans are more often portrayed as kings or great lords.

And humans are more diverse because the game developers are human...Probably...So you really can't blame them for hoping humans ruled and expanded more than the other races.

And back to realism, for the evil humans bit. Clearly they aren't going for realism, they include magic and elves. So no, it is not guaranteed to be "more realistic" to show evil rulers than the good guys. Heck, even in real life the "evil humans" part doesn't actually work. Take a look at history for 3 seconds (See what I did there) and you will realize that very few leaders would be considered evil, and those were quickly overthrown by outside forces or, in some cases, by the people beneath them. Would you say that King Richard was an evil person? Yet he achieved great fame and success. I'm pretty sure he wielded a sword too. Hitler, on the other hand, was evil. Guess how long he lasted before he was brought down. The point is a game about some evil ruler would only last until the guy was destroyed by everybody else. And frankly I'd rather play a character who wasn't doomed to failure.

The exception to that last point is Overlord, but he's way too cool and too otherworldly to be touched by your realistic light on video games, of all things.

 

[almostgold]

Keep in mind, a lot of this is meaningless without anyone to comapare us to. Like the gorilla thing. What says an elf or dwarf wouldn't be even weaker pound for pound? Or our history making us bad guys. Or how versatile we are.

 

[number4096]

Human specialisation comes mostly in relation to other animals:

-intelligence(Very,very much so.)

-opposable thumbs(Can grab objects,people,pressure points and dislocate bones,amongst other things.)

-Endurance(Not as much as some migratory species,but still have terminator like levels of endurance.)

-Bipedal(Our legs are the strongest part of our bodies because of that,ask weight-lifters.)

-Sight(Not as good as eagles,but still better than many species.)

-All around awesomeness(we are one of the only species who can break cement barehandedly if we train hard enough.)

-We are called superpredators,enough said.

 

[Axolotl]

Not so sure about this. Going back to the Lord of Rings, one of the main themes is that humans were saved by non humans like the Hobbits, Elves and Gandalf the angelic mystical space alien. In D&D, the most popular heroic characters is a dark elf in the official fiction. It is a cliche in D&D that the most popular player character is the the heroic dark elf who is rebelling against the evil dark elf society.

Yes LotR isn't what RPGs base themselves in is it? Sure they do aesthetically but that's only skin deep. Most RPGs base themselves in Conan first and foremost and the Conan series is all about a heroic ultra-man crushing his enemies.

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

In my opinion...any sane gamer who is presented with a race option in a game would NEVER pick the human...tho some guys play a human chick...but i can live with that fetish of boobs

 

[Axolotl]

In my opinion...any sane gamer who is presented with a race option in a game would NEVER pick the human...tho some guys play a human chick...but i can live with that fetish of boobs

Humans get a bonus feat. Anyone who plays non-human in a DnD based game is a fool.

 

[twostripe]

all races are stereotyped in rpgs, elves live in the forest and huf trees dwarves are miners and have beards n axes.the only vallid complaint i think i see is that they always seem british.
and humans are usually the bastard race who are mean to everyone

 

[Khada]

Reading into it too much bra'

 

[Grand_Arcana]

-snip-

A gorilla is hardly a fair comparison in terms of strength. But for versatillity, humans live on evry continent on the planet, we can survive extreme altitudes and extreme temeratures both hot and cold. And while we aren' particularly strong the human body is amazingly durable and can stand extreme abuse/

Oh, I was thinking in terms of RPG stats, not evolutionary success. (Gorillas for DPS!)
EDIT:
Gorilla was just the first thing that came to mind. Really though, a lot of animals, especially predators and larger apes, are stronger than we are if you compare weights.

Yes, thank you for agreeing with me.
/snark

I was disagreeing on a semantic level. Two swords beat one sword. As long as the one isn't a claymore or the like.

Another misunderstanding. I usually have two-handed long-swords or bastard swords in mind when I type "sword." I don't even consider one-handed swords without a shield viable except in a crowded area like a building or dense woods. I should have clarified myself.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Not so sure about this. Going back to the Lord of Rings, one of the main themes is that humans were saved by non humans like the Hobbits, Elves and Gandalf the angelic mystical space alien. In D&D, the most popular heroic characters is a dark elf in the official fiction. It is a cliche in D&D that the most popular player character is the the heroic dark elf who is rebelling against the evil dark elf society.

Yes LotR isn't what RPGs base themselves in is it? Sure they do aesthetically but that's only skin deep. Most RPGs base themselves in Conan first and foremost and the Conan series is all about a heroic ultra-man crushing his enemies.

I don't think they mostly base themsevles directly on LotR but this was very influential. There is a lot of stuff between Conan and LotR by people who have read both and those books were probably more directly influential.

Anyway, you can't look at American RPGs and say that there are no heroes in non human races or even in the "monster" races. Most parties in western RPGs are more like a travelling circus than a band of Teutonic Knights.

 

[Maze1125]

-Humans are oftenly shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).

Humans throughout history have done huge amounts of evil, but they've also done huge amounts of good.

Most RPGs I can think of depict this quite accurately. Some humans are good, some are bad.

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.)

That is simply not true.
A man with a sword beats a man with a spear, every time.
A man with a spear beats a man on a horse.
A man on a horse beats a man with a sword.

All these different weapons were used because each had a particular niche. None were "better" than others. If your army lacked a unit carrying any of those weapons, you were likely going to lose against an army that did have those weapons.

 

[number4096]

Spears and polearms are much stronger than most people think:

-They can easily kill bears,mammoths and even whales.Just ask inuits.

-They were the most useful weapons against and for cavalry

-If you know how to use it well,you will use rotatory movements keep people away,use the handle to go kilik(soul calibur)on people,and even the blunt end will be a powerful mean of attack.Also you can parry all attacks with these very easily from any directions.

 

[fletch_talon]

-first,humans are shown as a balanced species,when in reality they are probably the most heavily specialised of all animals.

I don't think you'll find that humans in RPGs are being compared to animals. They're being compared to things like dwarves (stronger) and elves (faster/smarter/whatever). Humans are used as the standard to which the other races are compared.
Also how are we specialised? There are exceptionally strong humans, then there are exceptionally smart ones, fast ones, big ones small ones red fish blue... anyway... My point is as a species we vary greatly from person to person, one bloke might get through life based on his muscles, whilst another might be piss weak but with the intelligence to outwit competitors.

-Humans are shown as more diversified than everyone else,when in reality,animals are just as diversified as humans are from an individual to the other.Any species that reproduce sexually will have this sort of diversity.And as can be seen outside,people tend to copy each other and do the same things,with those behaving differently from the mass being called exceptions,for a reason.

The difference between humans and other sexually reproducing animals is that weak animals are weeded out. Animals breed based on favourable attributes, generally strength. It desn't matter how smart a lion is, its not going to beat a stronger male in a fight and so he's not going to get the girls. Compare that to humans where a complete loser can potentially find a mate and you'll find that we've mostly obliterated natural selection in our species, causing a greater variation amongst ourselves.

-Humans are oftenly shown as magic users,which kind of breaks any forms of resemblance with real humans.They should be called something else at least.

So they look like humans, act like humans and in every way are humans, but because they can use magic which is present in the world the RPG is set in... they aren't human...?
Now I'm just imagining Hagrid going up to a young Harry Potter and saying, you're a wizard harry... you aint human.

-Humans are too oftenly shown as english europeans rather than other ethnicities or at least other europeans than english europeans.This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).Or when the very first humans to born are shown as caucasians rather than africans.It is not racist,but it is inaccurate in relation to reality.They should at least be called something else.

Target groups. The majority of people who will play it are caucasian so they relate better to caucasian characters.

-Humans are oftenly shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).

First of all, you'll find humans are most often shown as they are, generally indifferent with a few really good ones and a decent amount of bad ones.
Secondly: Target groups. The majority of people who will play it are human so they relate better to human characters.

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.

First of all, I think its been proven many a time that the katana was really only useful in context (ie. whee everyone wore wooden armour etc.) kinda like all weapons really. A spear isn't gonna be much good to you if your opponent can get close enough. I realise the point of polearms is to not let people get close enough but thats not aways the case. I would also imagine that in a crowded battlefield, a spear is gonna be a bit awkward.
More importantly (and to cover my ass in case I was wrong about somethng above) symbolism. Swords are symbolic of courage, strength and power. And besides, its fiction, it doesn't have to be accurate if it looks cool.
[/quote]

 

[Zacharine]

-As for humans and magic,they are never shown as specialised in magic

Dungeons and Dragons realm, prestige class 'Red Wizard Of Thay':

"The Red Wizards are the masters of Thay, the conquerors of that land?s native Rashemi, and the would-be magical overlords of Faerûn. They focus on a school of magic more intently than any specialist, achieving incredible mastery of magic within a very narrow focus. Seen as cruel and evil tyrants by people across Toril, a few choose to leave their region, assume secret identities, and practice magic without having to worry about political alliances and possible slave uprisings.

Early in their careers, would-be Red Wizards specialize in a school of magic. All Red Wizards have some skill as a specialist wizard, and most follow that path exclusively, but a few dabble in other sorts of learning (such as combat or divine magic)."

the first two requirements are:
Race: Human
Alignment: Any non-good

-About human evil,even if there are evil humans in most RPGs, the one who saves the day is almost inevitably human.

Baldur's Gate 1: Sarevok and the Iron Throne, almost purely human organization. Savior: whatever race the protagonist was.

Baldur's Gate 2: Irenicus was a human (well, a former elf turned into a human).

Baldur's Gate 2 ToB: The Priestess of Bhaal wanting to become the new Lord of Murder was a human. Situation averted by the protagonist with the help of a Solar.

Planesace:Torment. The protagonist is one of the worst possible examples of humanity. In fact, the entire plane is created from his sins....

WH40k. There are no good guys. There is no saving the day. There is only eternal war, where individual battles won or lost are almost pointless.

Jade Empire: Okay, if only because humans are the only race. But note that a Blue Dragon/a goddes plays a major part in the salvation/dooming of the empire and it was human hubris that led to the entire situation in the first place.

New World Of Darkness, Mage The Awakening. Human mages broke the world. They stormed heaven and inhabited it. But in doing so created the Fallen world which they rule over from the Supernal World. Hubris of man is one of the main points of the game. And there is no fixing the world.

Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscure. Several side-plots deal with the scum of humanity and non-humans attempting to fix things.

Do not make such thoughtless generalizations.

-Honda tadakatsu and Zhao yun could defeat entire armies with their spears,

And do you know how the traditional battles in Japan were fought? They were duels, where entire armies might bow and greet each opposing warrior individually, just to make sure who was fighting whom. Sometimes, battles and fates of armies were settes in duels by the leaders. Later, when armies fought with regiments and closer to 'proper' battles, victory was usually seen to be the sole result of the commander. Just as loss was the failiure of the commander. Thus, a battle won for an army was counted to be a battle won for the general. While Honda Tadakatsu/Heihachirō was undoubteldy a skilled warrior and a great general, I doubt he single handedly defeat armies. Rather, he led armies to victory. Same with Zhao Yun, who was a general above all else.

During the Heijan era, a Bushi (warrior noble, pre-form of a Samurai) fought mainly with a bow. From horseback. Using a spear was a strong mark of dishonor, it was seen as a wepon fit only for a lowly peasant. And these people were good with a bow.

My point is, preferred weapons change with times, society and tactics. To declare a spear the 'ultimate' weapon is extremely narrow minded. Even in games spears and halbergs and other polearms are usually given a poorer DPS to balance the increased range.

 

[Axolotl]

Oh, I was thinking in terms of RPG stats, not evolutionary success. (Gorillas for DPS!)

Even then we're at least par for the course in every area save strength.

Another misunderstanding. I usually have two-handed long-swords or bastard swords in mind when I type "sword." I don't even consider one-handed swords without a shield viable except in a crowded area like a building or dense woods. I should have clarified myself.

Well most depictions of Dual-Wielding they're using single handed swords (altough anyone who could wield two claymores instantly falls under the badass category). And you're right about the effectivness of single swords but it should be noted most RPG combat does happen in a confined space, or at least enough of it happens there that swords are a heros go-to weapon.

I don't think they mostly base themsevles directly on LotR but this was very influential. There is a lot of stuff between Conan and LotR by people who have read both and those books were probably more directly influential.

They have worlds from Tolkein but gameplay/storywise it's pure Conan/John Carter style larger than life heroes winning through strenght of arms. How many RPG have you played where the characters win by rejecting power or through a show of humility?

Anyway, you can't look at American RPGs and say that there are no heroes in non human races or even in the "monster" races. Most parties in western RPGs are more like a travelling circus than a band of Teutonic Knights.

Not saying theres no heroes but in most where you don't get to chose the main characters race, they're human and the majority of NPC's will be human as well.