Human-Centric Stories

This post is an argument for human-centric fantasy, not because Gary Gygax said so, but because tone matters. Human-centric fantasy is easier for normies (normal people outside the hobby and other adults), and even some of the participants to take seriously or respect.

Gary Gygax envisioned Dungeons & Dragons to be human-centric. I know this because I read it in the Game Masters Guide he wrote for first edition AD&D. Quote "Advanced D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity." This is very different from modern D&D.

To quote Gary again, "The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis for an illogical game. From a design aspect, it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which most are desirous and capable of identifying with."

Gary was just getting started! The font is tiny, and it goes on like that for an entire page! He goes on to say how we have a real world full of history, fiction, science, and mythology to draw from about humans, but not so much to draw on for other creatures such as elves. This means, to quote Gary,"...the magnitude of effort required (for a DM to create their campaign setting) is reduced by several degrees." This sounds practical. He also says that works of fiction that do not feature humans as the center focus are uncommon, and so creating a campaign around non-humans will be "shallow, incomplete, and unsatisfying" unless the DM is "a renaissance man". That may have been true in the late 1970's, or maybe it was Gary revealing his own biases. The reality is that the library of fiction has blown up since then!

Let me poke another hole in Gary's argument. Fantasy and science-fiction are so common these days that you can probably ask your players what their expectations of a generic fantasy setting or story are, and you'll probably arrive at a consensus after a bit of curating. I think the best point Gary raises is "Alien viewpoints can be found, of course, but not in quantity (and often not in much quality either)." By alien viewpoints, I think we can extrapolate this to mean elfs, dwarfs, hobbits, etc. The modern iteration of the elf is a creature who is practically immortal and doesn't sleep. How can something like this possibly relate to humans? There are people in this hobby who genuinely find it ruins their immersion when players play elf characters like humans with pointy ears. Some people don't care, but some people do!

By the way, the section of the Advanced D&D Dungeon Master's Guide that I have been referencing is called "The Monster as a Player Character", and I think Gary's intent with writing this section was to justify limiting players choices of races. It shows Gary's tastes are in low fantasy. What a coincidence; So are mine! Modern D&D feels like playing A Very Muppets RPG. I've read criticisms that call it kitchen-sink fantasy because there's a little bit of everything. It lacks cohesion. There are things that are stuck into the game without consideration for whether it makes sense to stick it in. In the last 5e gaming group I was in, I felt like Eddie Valiant in the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I don't like it. It's not to my taste. I imagined being a cool wizard, but I was constantly outshined by a min-maxed little kobalt with goofy personality quirks and who soloed an NPC using Strahd's stat block in two combat rounds! Two!

I was expecting a vibe like Lord of the Rings. What I got was something else. The GM was trying to run the game with a tone like Lord of the Rings, but the players weren't. One of the characters was blatantly the Green Power Ranger. One character was based off the Mandalorians from Star Wars. One character might have been partially inspired by some gangster movie. And of course, one of them was that goofy kobalt assassin who was the most powerful of us all. These are tonally distinct and tonally incompatible ideas. They don't mix. It's like mixing Peanut Butter and Pepperoni (or as I call it peanut-pepper butter-oni). The tone of one idea spoils the other.

I really like Legends of Avantris. It's a podcast of people who play D&D for the entertainment of an audience. It's distinct from Critical Role, in my opinion, because the Avantris people make likable characters and half of the CR people don't.

I would like to sincerely apologize to the cast and crew of Critical Role for the above comment.

The point of bringing up Legends of Avantris was to point out that they don't use human characters very much and their shows, no matter how good, are always tonally off. They all feel a bit cartoonish. Even Icebound, a serious podcast with darker themes, would be slightly less silly if the characters were all human. It would be easier to take seriously, and it would be easier to get into

Here's the real reason for a human-centric setting. It's about tone and personal taste. If you can play a monster (i.e. kobolt player character), then monsters aren't monstrous; They're just exotic people, like South Park Canadians. You can't have it both ways. It's hard to reconcile a setting where monsters can be monsters like in a horror genre, but also exotic people.

Human-centric fantasy isn't about limiting creativity, it's about protecting tone. Think about it like this. If you wanted to introduce something to a normie, would you be more confident if it didn't have a bunch of cartoonish looking characters? For instance, in Icebound, the cast is a small green guy with a conniving expression, a big blue guy with a crab hand, a dragon man who always looks too relaxed, and a bunny girl depicted with flattering hips. Any of these things would make a normal person give you a funny look. The bunny with the hips might make them give you a dirty look. You might feel like you have to defend your interests. Someone might think you need to grow up. I think the cartoonish qualities make the medium harder for adults to take seriously, and I think it's detrimental to the hobby.

No matter what, cartoonish aesthetics will always undermine a serious tone. Human‑centric fantasy keeps the tone grounded, relatable, and emotionally legible. It's the same reason why they toned down superhero costumes in modern superhero movies. Tone and relatability. Human characters will always have more appeal to a causal audience. They make the world easier to believe, the tone easier to maintain, and the story easier for adults to take seriously.

Related post: Seven Rules for Monsters in TTRPGs - Your Fun is Wrong

Related post: Human‑Centric Fantasy Settings: Why Monster PCs Break Tone

Conflict is King - Story Writing Advice

Do you want to write but don't know where to start or how? Start with the conflict. Conflict comes before plot. Conflict is about the drama; Completely absent of the setting, myth, magic, cool powers, fate, or whatever. These other things are not a factor in drama, they're only flavor.

Here is your checklist for conflict; Not plot, conflict. Fill in the blanks for Protagonist, Antagonist, X, Y, and Z:

• The protagonist wants X. If the protagonist does not get X, then Y happens.
• The antagonist wants Z. In order for the antagonist to have Z, the protagonist cannot have X.
• The antagonist therefore threatens to cause Y.
• The protagonist is small. The antagonist is big. The protagonist cannot beat the antagonist.

For clarity:

• X is the protagonist's goal.
• Y is what's at stake. The stakes should feel very important to the protagonist.
• Z is the antagonist's goal. This is the obstacle for the protagonist.

Example: Max is a barbarian prince (Protagonist) who wants to marry Carry (X), a sickly barbarian peasant without wide child-bearing hips. If Max doesn't marry Carry, he will never have love (Y happens). Max's dad, Maximillan (Antagonist), says no, your role is to be a leader of men for our people, and my role is to make sure of that. Therefore, I will arrange your marriage with a proper woman so your lineage will be strong (Z).

The conflict here is that Max (Protagonist) is opposed to his dad, Maximillan, and is expressed in the because. Max wants Carry because. Maximillan wants Max to marry a proper woman because. Each character has valid reasons.

Setting can be functional. All you have to do is come up with consequences for the setting if Max chooses Carry. For example, if Max chooses Carry, Maximum will disown Max and instate his second born son, Mini-Max, as heir. Mini-Max is a git and a prat who wants to make war with all the other barbarian clans (neighbors) and take over the region. This may cause war and destabilize the region, making the region weak and vulnerable to attacks from people outside the region (foreign threats).

Player Skill vs Character Skill - Managing Expectations

There is a discussion in the TTRPG hobby called Player Skill versus Character Skill.

Player Skill describes a playstyle where players solve problems in the game using their own creativity and problem-solving skills. Examples:

• 1. Players using their own persuasiveness to convince NPCs to help them. The player makes an argument in character, and the GM evaluates it in character, then responds.
• 2. A player describes how they interact with a feature of a room or scene. If their description would reasonably allow them to find something hidden, then they just find it. For example, if they describe pouring water onto the floor and the game master describes that it drains through a crack of a pressure plate in the floor. They player has revealed a trap automatically!
• 3. If a player wants to sneak, they describe how they use their environment effectively to avoid line of sight, how they minimize sounds like taking off their noisy armor or jangling weapons, etc.

Character Skill describes a playstyle where players solve problems in the game primarily using powers and abilities on their character sheet.

• 1. A player declares an intent to persuade an NPC, then rolls some dice and invokes a game mechanic, such as a speech skill.
• 2. The player declares an intent to search the floor for traps, invokes a search or perception mechanic, and rolls a die.
• 3. A player declares an intent to be sneaky and invokes a game mechanic by rolling a die.

Player Skill and Character Skill describe two completely different kinds of games. They feel different.

The feel of games with player skill

• 1. Gives more value to game master descriptions of the room or scene.
• 2. Incentivizes good player narration, creativity and improv in the moment.
• 3. Rolling dice is a fail-state for poor creativity, planning, or decision making!
• 4. Deemphasizes the need for rules knowledge and systems mastery.
• 5. Solve problems with your wits and know that the dice won't arbitrarily spoil a perfectly good idea!
• 6. More freeform, rules-lite game.
• 7. The game becomes simpler and more intuitive. You don't need to know the rules; instead, just understand that anything that can reasonably happen in real life is allowed in the game.

The feel of games with character skill:

• 1. Players make decisions based on knowledge of game mechanics rather than imagining and describing clear actions.
• 2. Players are incentivized to master the rules and systems of the game, and even exploit weaknesses in the game design.
• 3. A greater emphasis is placed on rolling dice, and the game master's interpretations of the dice can feel arbitrary or contrived. Actions that have no business succeeding can succeed, and actions that have no business failing can fail. This can cause ludo narrative dissonance and loss of suspension of disbelief.
• 4. Creative actions and good planning can grant bonuses, but some players are most creative outside the game when creating their character.
• 5. Players refer to or rely on their character sheet for answers to problems.
• 6. Character options get classified as either optimal or sub-optimal, and all decisions eventually become a matter of doing the optimal thing over and over ad nauseum.
• 7. Good ideas get questioned because there isn't a clear rule for it, and we look for the rulebook to tell us if it's allowed or if it will be helpful, even if it reasonably would or be.

So, if we're playing a game that emphasizes player skill, why do we have game mechanics? Mechanics are not for solving problems, and they're not for resolving uncertainty. They give structure to the game, and they're for simulating actions that need to be simulated. If you want to strike a stationary object, you can just do it because there's no chance of failure. If you want to strike an opponent who's actively fighting back, then we use the mechanics and dice to simulate the outcome. We need to simulate combat because we can't hit each other with swords at the game table, but we don't need to simulate lying and haggling because we can actually do that!

Further, you don't need a mechanic for everything. Mechanics are only needed for things that absolutely need simulation, nothing more. Everything that can reasonably be solved through the logic of the world or narrative should be. This is what the game master (aka the referee) is for! If your opponent is no longer able to defend themself, you don't need to roll a die to hit them! You don't need a rule to tell you that if you take off your heavy metal armor and heavy backpack full of treasure, you can sneak, climb, swim, run and jump better.

What Does My Character Know?

Sometimes, players ask the GM something like "would my character know anything about X?" Either the player is knowledgeable about the game and the setting and wants to confirm what of their player knowledge they may use, or the player has no knowledge about the game and setting, and they want the GM to tell them what their character would reasonably know.

The Character Skill approach to the game is to allow the player to roll an Intellect or Knowledge check or test, or to invoke some feature of their character that lets them automatically possess and recall that knowledge.

The Player Skill approach to the game is to instead tell the player "why don't you explore the world and find someone who does know?"

Consider that this situation is a regular part of that game and liken it to a puzzle. It's a puzzle that can be solved in different ways. With the Character Skill approach, the player merely has to think to use a game mechanic. The solution is then either presented to them or it isn't. If it's presented, the players can then move onto the next challenge. The pacing of the game or major points in the narrative is fast.

With the Player Skill approach, the player has to rely on their own creativity and work out their own solution within the setting and narrative to solve the problem. They can think to research at a library, gather rumors and news from a tavern, or to search for an NPC expert within the setting and ask for knowledge. Access to that expert may have some prerequisites, like gold or a positive reputation. The player may first have to learn about the expert by asking around town. This is a type of discovery and is fun and rewarding to some players. Earning access to an expert NPC can also feel rewarding to some players. It gives more value to the setting by placing more need on the players to learn and understand the setting and the people in it.

The differences between the two styles also means that the player characters are either self-sufficient with non-material resources, or they are a group who occasionally have to make time to gather non-material resources.

Which approach to play is preferrable? Depends on you! How do you have fun? Do you want to solve the puzzles by flexing your own mental muscles, or do you want to solve puzzles by rolling dice? I'm sure there's pros and cons, and there might even be times when one approach is preferrable, and times when the other approach is preferrable.

Mapping

While exploring, either a wilderness or dungeon, how do your characters know when they're lost?

A Character Skill approach would say that players can use a game mechanic and know that they're lost, and then potentially use the game mechanics to figure out where they are. The players may also have access to a map or other visual aid to show the world and their process in it.

The Player Skill approach might say that your characters will know when they're lost in-game the same way that you would know you're lost in real life. You walk or drive around for long enough asking "how far is it? How long have we been traveling? Are you sure we're going the right way? Did we pass it? Does anyone recognize where we're at?" In my experience, recognizing that I'm lost in real life is a process rather than a eureka moment.

Getting lost in the wilderness or dungeon can be dangerous. You can run out of resources, get sick, die to exposure, or be attacked by some dangerous wild animal, monster, or human. Being lost is the obstacle and a source of tension. Being able to find your own way out of it is the solution, and to improve at navigation to avoid getting lost in the future is another solution.

Imagine the roleplay prompt: "you're lost in the dangerous wilderness with limited supplies and a deadline to save the victim of the monster. What do you do?" Some people want to work this out scene by scene, and they want to un-stuck themselves using their player skills. There's potential for team building and learning skills. One solution is to find higher ground, like climbing a hill or a tall tree, then you can see further. The game master will describe what you can see, and then you can work out landmarks and navigate your way back. The adventure was unexpected. There's also a chance to discover something you weren't looking for while you're lost.

Player Skill Over Character Stats

Your player skill is your character's luck, wisdom, intelligence, and charisma. Think. Be careful. If you the player get a funny feeling that something is not right, it's OK to use that feeling in play to keep your character safe. Don't hold back just because your character has low stats!

Game Balance

Do not assume the obstacles and challenges are balanced to match your character's abilities. Rely on your own creativity and ingenuity. There is no right way to overcome a challenge. Not all obstacles need to be overcome; some can be circumvented. Fleeing is always valid. Make sure you always have a way out.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, Player Skill vs Character Skill isn’t just a mechanical distinction, it’s a question of what kind of game you actually want to play. Some tables thrive on dice-driven certainty and character sheets full of buttons to press; others want a grounded, intuitive world where clever ideas matter more than modifiers. Neither approach is universally better, but they create completely different experiences, and mismatched expectations will ruin a game faster than any bad die roll. So decide what kind of play you enjoy, communicate it clearly, and build a table that buys into the same style. When everyone understands the expectations, the game becomes smoother, more immersive, and a lot more fun.

Related: Game Design Sins - Character-Skill over Player-Skill is a post about D&D 4e skill challenges and why they stink.