Worlds of Design: Baseline Assumptions of Fantasy RPGs

You can write a set of fantasy role-playing game (FRPG) rules without specifying a setting, but there’s a default setting assumed by virtually every FRPG. Moreover, some rules (e.g. the existence of plate armor, and large horses) imply things about technology and breeding in the setting.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

The Basics of FRPG​

All FRPGs start with some assumptions built into the setting, some of them so innocuous that gamers might not even realize they're assumptions to begin with. For example the assumption that there are horses large enough to be ridden, even though for thousands of years of history, horses weren’t large enough for riding (the era of war chariots from about 1700-1000 BCE, and the era before that of infantry only).

Familiarity vs. strangeness is an important question for any worldbuilder to answer. What are gamers familiar with? That tends to be the default. J. R. R. Tolkien’s works (Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, etc.) are nearly a default setting for many, as in the dwarves and elves who are quite different from traditional stories of dwarves and elves. You could argue that the default setting is more Tolkien than it is medieval European, but he largely adopted Late Medieval European (1250-1500), so I prefer to refer to that.

The question is, do you want your ruleset, or your campaign setting, to follow the default? An early example of great deviation from the default was the wonderfully different world of Tekumel (Empire of the Petal Throne, and a few novels). A “different” FRPG might posit no monsters at all, perhaps not even elves and dwarves, just a lot of humans, yet never explicitly say so: if you leave out rules for monsters and humanoid races other than humans, you have a different-than-baseline setting, even if you didn't consciously make that decision. But be warned: too much unfamiliarity may make some players uncomfortable.

Are there baseline assumptions for science fiction? There seems to be so much variety, I wouldn’t try to pin it down.

The Baseline​

What ARE the baseline assumptions? In general, they are mostly late medieval (not “Dark Ages” (500-1000) or High Medieval (1000-1250), as FRPGs tend to be magic grafted to later medieval Europe. In no particular order here is a list of categories for baseline assumptions that I’ll discuss specifically:

• Transportation
• Communication
• State of Political Entities
• Commonality of Magic
• Commonality of Adventurers
• Commonality of Monsters
• Length of History and Rate of Change
• Level of Technology
• Warfare and the Military
• Religion
• Demography
• Climate

Transportation​

Wooden sailing vessels, late medieval style. In calm waters such as landlocked seas and lakes, galleys; in wild waters (such as oceans), small sailing vessels. River barges much preferable to poor roads and carts. And are there wonderful roads left by or maintained by an Empire (Rome)? See "Medieval Travel & Scale."

Communication​

Proceeds at the rate of travel, by horse or by ship. In other words, very slow by modern standards. Even as late as 1815, the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the War of 1812 had ended (in 1814), but before news of the treaty had reached Louisiana from Europe.

State of Political Entities​

Monarchies and lower level independent states (such as Duchies) ruled by “the man in charge” (very rarely, a woman). Nobles. States, not nations (the people rarely care which individual is actually in charge). Castles are so defensible that it’s fairly easy for subordinate nobles to defy their superiors. There are small cities (5-10,000 usually), not really large ones (over 100,000 people).

Commonality of Magic​

Magicians are usually rare, secretive folk. Few people ever see any manifestation of magic. In some cases the church or the government tries to suppress magic. See "The Four Stages of Magic."

Commonality of Adventurers​

Magicians, knights, powerful clerics, all are rare. 1 in 500 people? 1 in 10,000?

Commonality of Monsters​

Human-centric. Monsters are usually individuals rather than large groups. Intelligent monsters are rare. (Here Tolkien’s influence, the great orc/goblin hordes, often overrides European influence.) Undead may be common. Dragons are “legendary.”

Length of History and Rate of Change​

Slow pace of change of technology. Awareness of the greater days of a “universal empire” in the past (such as Rome), now gone. Technology changed much faster in late medieval times, than in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.

Level of Technology​

Late medieval, or possibly less. (Late medieval for the technology necessary to make full plate armor, if nothing else.) See "When Technology Changes the Game."

Warfare and the Military​

Wars rarely changed borders much (Late Medieval) - the great migrations have ended. Wars certainly aren’t national wars, the common people are spectators. See "The Fundamental Patterns of War."

Religion​

What we’re used to in later medieval times is a universal monotheistic church (Catholicism), though with foreign churches of different stripe (Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist). But in games, more often the setting seems to derive from older, pantheon-based, religions.

Demography​

Density of population is low. Depends on whether the local area is frontier or settled. Cities are population sinks (high mortality rates). There may be stories of a Great Plague (later-1340s and onward in Europe).

Climate​

Temperate medieval European (more often, English (governed by the Gulf Stream)), with fairly cool summers so that full armor is not impossibly hot. (Imagine wearing full armor when the average summer high is 91 degrees F, as in northern Florida.) But winters are much less severe than in the northern USA. (Modern European climate is currently getting much warmer than in late medieval times.)

Your Turn: Do you see the default setting as different that what I’ve summarized?

 

[billd91]

Wizardry implies that magic is something that can be learned by the aristocracy. Sorcerers imply that magical bloodlines that could be bred by the aristocracy over successive generations. Warlocks imply powerful patrons that the aristocracy could make pacts with for power if they lacked other methods. You are right that there are other skills that nobles likely should know, but a lot of these happen to be skills either under Intelligence or Charisma, which either the Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock happen to have access to. So it's clearly not an either/or scenario if the classes can pick these skills up as well. And also, it's clearly not exactly redundant due to the Background system, where one could easily be a Noble Wizard or a Noble Sorcerer.

The presence of options for players to base their PCs on doesn't necessarily imply the same opportunities exist for NPCs. Your whole post is founded on the assumption that's the case - and that's not necessarily true for all settings.
The whole issue of whether or not people capable of wielding magic would dominate politics or magic would be pursued as a means of gaining political power depend fundamentally on how a setting defines how accessible these abilities truly are. Any argument that doesn't start with that as a defining axiom is ultimately based on assumptions.

 

[Aldarc]

The presence of options for players to base their PCs on doesn't necessarily imply the same opportunities exist for NPCs. Your whole post is founded on the assumption that's the case - and that's not necessarily true for all settings.
The whole issue of whether or not people capable of wielding magic would dominate politics or magic would be pursued as a means of gaining political power depend fundamentally on how a setting defines how accessible these abilities truly are. Any argument that doesn't start with that as a defining axiom is ultimately based on assumptions.

The whole issue is that people are making ad hoc justifications and assertions for pre-existing aesthetics and it's all made-up fantasy elf game non-sense.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm pulling it from the few rules and images on age and class in the game. There is more nods that wizards and clerics of humanlike lifespans are normally not young when they are of noteworthy skill and power than nods that they are young.

D&D doesn't use the Hogwarts, anime, or MMO mentality of mage learning.

D&D 5e uses the mentality of "rule of cool" or "whatever: it's your game" more than anything else. That said, I'm not sure why nobles would have to be of "noteworthy skill and power" for it to be a common path for nobility to explore or encourage among its own.

 

[billd91]

The whole issue is that people are making ad hoc justifications and assertions for pre-existing aesthetics and it's all made-up fantasy elf game non-sense.

Now, see, that sounds like you've decided to be kind of a dick about this by being dismissive about how people engage in their hobbies and the thoughtful speculation they choose to engage in. For some of us, it's kind of a fun mental exercise to speculate on how a fantasy world might be affected or portrayed with certain assumptions in place - and here you are dumping on it as "elf game non-sense" as if how anybody else spends their leisure time is fodder for your judgment or if saying so somehow elevates you above that. Hint: It doesn't - it just makes you look like a dick.

 

[Umbran]

Now, see, that sounds like you've decided to be kind of a dick about this ...

Mod Note:
Yeah, so... if he's being kind of a jerk about this by being dismissive... what are you being by calling him that? Hm? An upstanding, proper, and polite board member? Sure doesn't look like it.

How about everyone here be more respectful of each other going forward, okay? Thanks.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D 5e uses the mentality of "rule of cool" or "whatever: it's your game" more than anything else. That said, I'm not sure why nobles would have to be of "noteworthy skill and power" for it to be a common path for nobility to explore or encourage among its own.

Because that's how the rules work.

In the older editions, you had to roll good just to be a caster. They also set up the premise that Spellcasting took tons of dedication, natural wit, or genetics. You couldn't even increase you stats without magic.

The new editions made early wizards and clerics no trash. But 5e uses the same assumptions as AD&D.

Only the PCs, DMPCs, Former PCs, and future PCs, and all their antagonists were special. Lord Fartley was just a NPC and used the base assumption that he wasn't special and just used a slightly better array than a filthy commoner. So Bartley didn't have the stats to be a wizard, could not train his intelligence up then become a wizard, and choose not to be a wizard. And he didn't want to be sevant to the Cardinal of the Church of Odin. So Bartley would not be a spellcaster outside of some rituals he picked up.

But Bartley's 4th son roll a 18 for his Intelligence and got dad use his power to convince a archmage to take his son as an apprentice. If he decided to adventure and died, well he can't press his claim on the heir's titles from beyond the grave. And no one would accuse Bartley of kinslaying. Twas an orc who did it. And if he choose to no adventure, his hier would have a mage brother in his court too old to marry off and create another threatening line in time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You still have to be trained in weapons and armor. And if you want to make a cleric out of normal folk you have to train them as priests. Few D&D clerics are just randos picked by gods of the street.

Why do I still need to be trained in weapons and Armor? Assuming mods +0 all around

Mage Armor is the equivalent of a Chain Shirt, doesn't cost Gold to create, and can be donned in a single action unlike the 5 to 10 minutes of medium and heavy armor. If you need that higher AC? The Shield Spell gives you six seconds of Platemail. Again, without needing to spend the money on those items.

Maybe you still want to be trained with a Shield, but that is a far cry from being proficient in armors, and instead of focusing on getting a 15 str and high con... you can get a high Int and Dex. A 15 Dex brings base Mage Armor to the equivalent of Half-Plate with Dex +0, and gives you the same protection as Plate and a Shield if you cast Shield.


As for weapons, at mod +0 most cantrips are equivalent to a longbow or longsword. Firebolt at that stage is equal in damage to a halberd. And sure, if we assume that +2 Strength from 15 strength to wear plate, then you are dealing just a little bit more with a sword. But, with the spell you have further range, rider effects if you pick a cantrip that has them, and the ability to hurt monsters resistant to non-magical weapons.

If you have a Demon invasion, swords are dealing 1/2 damage, but Chill Touch isn't.

And, even further, Wizards are trained in simple weapons, and the SCAG cantrips can be paired with those weapons to be even more devastating. Can that assassin or rebel retreat if you hit them with a Booming Blade using your Dagger? Not if they want to live.

Now, obviously if you have the chance, both is better, but unless we are saying all nobles are going to get the Fighter Class (which the books tell us not everyone trained in weapons is a fighter) then I'm not seeing any strong advantages of weapons and armor over these spells.

That's still middle aged. Too old for the whole nobility to be wizards and clerics. It is too unfeasible for short lived races in such a hostile world.

Huh? I think you misunderstood my point, because your answer makes no sense. Unless you think the only nobles running their estates are in their 20's and everyone over 30 us retired or dead.

My assumptions took place in them studying and ruling their fief at the same time. That's why I said potentially 20 years to get to 3rd level, because they were splitting their time.

Unless your assumption is that you need 30 years of dedicated study, with nothing else going on in your life at all, to reach third level in wizardry, then they could easily study and rule at the same time, leading to most ruling nobles being 3rd level wizards.

And, if you really think it takes 30 years of doing nothing but sitting in a room studying to reach a third level wizard... then I ask you why a week of adventuring can see a 1st level apprentice become a 3rd level wizard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people seem to be assuming that magic is something that you can just learn if you want to. This is not necessarily the case. In a lot of fiction becoming a spellcaster requires some sort of innate gift or spark and without it you simply cannot do it any more than a completely blind person could learn cinematography. Now in D&D separate existence of sorcerers and wizards might imply that wizardry is something one can simply learn, but even then that might only be in the same sense than in theory anyone could learn to become a quantum physicists (i.e. not really.) Furthermore, the aristocrats and courtiers have a lot of other things they need to learn, ballroom etiquette, domain management, courtly intrigue, fashion and countless other things. Most of them probably do not have sufficient time and mental acuity to master a completely separate and highly complex science on top of that.

Yes, with Sorcerers it is clearly indicated to us that Wizardry is purely about studying. No innate magical spark needed.


Which leaves only the difficulty of mastering a science as the hurdle. And, like you said, Nobles learned a lot. They learned foreign languages, history, mathematics, Latin, philosophy, theology, and some even went further pursuing things like alchemy.

So, it is not unreasonable to trim some of that down. Learning magic gives you the ability to speak understand other languages, and everyone speaks common anyway, so it is less needed in the DnD worlds. And many of those disciplines Nobles did learn (Theology, Philosphy, Alchemy) would naturally lead into the study of Arcana and Wizardry.

Also... no one said they had to be good at wizardry, just that they would likely be trained in it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because that's how the rules work.

In the older editions, you had to roll good just to be a caster. They also set up the premise that Spellcasting took tons of dedication, natural wit, or genetics. You couldn't even increase you stats without magic.

The new editions made early wizards and clerics no trash. But 5e uses the same assumptions as AD&D.

Only the PCs, DMPCs, Former PCs, and future PCs, and all their antagonists were special. Lord Fartley was just a NPC and used the base assumption that he wasn't special and just used a slightly better array than a filthy commoner. So Bartley didn't have the stats to be a wizard, could not train his intelligence up then become a wizard, and choose not to be a wizard. And he didn't want to be sevant to the Cardinal of the Church of Odin. So Bartley would not be a spellcaster outside of some rituals he picked up.

But Bartley's 4th son roll a 18 for his Intelligence and got dad use his power to convince a archmage to take his son as an apprentice. If he decided to adventure and died, well he can't press his claim on the heir's titles from beyond the grave. And no one would accuse Bartley of kinslaying. Twas an orc who did it. And if he choose to no adventure, his hier would have a mage brother in his court too old to marry off and create another threatening line in time.

The bolded part is an assumption, and a bad one. Even if we assume that training to be a wizard takes 30 years of dedicated study while doing literally nothing else, Bartley #4 is still between 37 and 40, plenty young enough to marry and have kids.

And also, who is this Archmage? Do you think he was a peasant before becoming a wizard? What peasant could afford to dedicate their entire life to not working. A peasant family didn't have the resources to support book learning at all, let alone 30 years of it.

If we assume that one simply must have the mental capabilities to learn wizardry, and no magic spark is needed, then by default the longer it takes to be a wizard, the more likely it is that nobles are the only ones who have the time and resources to be wizards.

Sure, occasionally a mage might find an orphan is seems clever enough to teach and they'd take them in as a foundling, or a family might petition and beg a mage to take in their child, but if you want to insist on three decades of idleness (or a week adventuring) to become a low level wizard, then noble families are the only ones with the resources and time to actually pursue wizardry at all. No one else can afford to sit locked in a room for 30 years with no income, buying expensive books, inks and reagents.

 

[Minigiant]

Why do I still need to be trained in weapons and Armor?

You're going at this backwards.
It's not that wizards need to choose to training armor or weapons.
It's that that in the default rules of the game, wizards only get training in 2-5 weapons and no armor.
Wizards get the lowest HD because they neglect their physiques.
If wizards have no time to triain in the use of a club and do somejumping jacks and laps, how can they run a territory at the same time.

And, even further, Wizards are trained in simple weapons,

No, they don't

Huh? I think you misunderstood my point, because your answer makes no sense. Unless you think the only nobles running their estates are in their 20's and everyone over 30 us retired or dead.

My assumptions took place in them studying and ruling their fief at the same time. That's why I said potentially 20 years to get to 3rd level, because they were splitting their time.

And my assumption is it takes a non-adventuring noble 20 years to study wizardry full-time. If you are splitting time, then it is longer.

That's another reason why people adventure. In D&D, you gain experience faster adventuring than home training. And you are putting a full time job on top of that.

D&D is weird. It's not Hogwarts, MITT, Hexside, or the Colleges of Magic. Its wizardry is ridiculous hard for no reason.

And, if you really think it takes 30 years of doing nothing but sitting in a room studying to reach a third level wizard... then I ask you why a week of adventuring can see a 1st level apprentice become a 3rd level wizard.

D&D is weird.
Killing an orc with a magic missle trains your brain more than hitting a target 200times with a magic missile.
D&D is weird.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're going at this backwards.
It's not that wizards need to choose to training armor or weapons.
It's that that in the default rules of the game, wizards only get training in 2-5 weapons and no armor.
Wizards get the lowest HD because they neglect their physiques.
If wizards have no time to train in the use of a club and do some jumping jacks and laps, how can they run a territory at the same time.

No, they don't

I mispoke. They are trained (ie proficient) in Daggers, Slings, Darts, Quarterstaffs and Light Crossbows. Which all are simple weapons, but you are right wizards are not trained in the use of all simple weapons. And, since a staff is just a long club, I'm not sure why you want to say they have no training.

But, you are also making a lot of assumptions.

They get the "lowest HD" but they also get more hp than your standard commoner. Also, this could be seen as simply PC rule game balance, since Mages, Archmages, Abjurers, Apprentice Wizards, Conjurers, Diviners, Enchanters, Evokers, Illusionists, Necromancers, and Transmuters have NPC statblocks that all use a d8 Hit Die.

It is particularly notable that the Apprentice Wizard picture on PG 209 of Volo's looks like a pretty young kid, and he has access to 1st level spells already. And more hp (2d8 for 9)

So, what is true for the Player Characters is not necessarily true for the NPCs.

And my assumption is it takes a non-adventuring noble 20 years to study wizardry full-time. If you are splitting time, then it is longer.

That's another reason why people adventure. In D&D, you gain experience faster adventuring than home training. And you are putting a full time job on top of that.

D&D is weird. It's not Hogwarts, MITT, Hexside, or the Colleges of Magic. Its wizardry is ridiculous hard for no reason.

D&D is weird.
Killing an orc with a magic missle trains your brain more than hitting a target 200times with a magic missile.
D&D is weird.

Okay. Where are you getting that 20 years from, and are you saying 20 years to reach level 1 as an Apprentice Wizard or 20 years to reach level 5 as a master wizard?

Is this 20 years with the Guidance of a fully trained wizard, or 20 years of independent study?


And, finally, if you want to propose that DnD is weird and combat gives you far more insight into magic than studying, then what about this.

Nobles very often went hunting. Traditionally, they would hunt things such as boars, bears, elk, ect. Let us assume that our precious little noble scion has got at least a cantrip mastered. Ray of Frost. 60 ft range, reduce enemy speed by 10 ft. Average of 4.5 damage per hit.

The noble with two scouts goes on a hunt for a Boar. The noble fires the first shot, the scouts fire four more shots. On average, the boar is dead. The Boar gives 50 xp. Dividing that 3-ways gives us 16 xp if we round down.

Assuming that the noble hunts twice a month, and only in the fall, and only beasts that give 50 xp, then they earn 96 xo a year.

In four years they hit level 2, likely sooner.

Maybe they have a very dangerous encounter with a Brown Bear. They scouts peppering it with arrows likely deal 24 damage, if the young wizard here knows magic missile it could be dropped in a single round. Maybe not, but not impossible, the bear is 200 xp. That is, again rounding down and splitting, 66 xp almost a full years hunting by itself.

But, even if we stick with about 100 xp a year (I mean, I'm sure there is going to be the occasional ambush or other fight the noble might get into to pop us up 4 xp) Then it will only take another 6 years to reach level 3.

So, in about a decade of hunting. And not heavily hunting, just two animals killed a month and only in a the fall, six a year. The young noble would hit level 3 as a wizard.

Like you said, DnD is weird. And just by being a noble and hunting like nobles did for sport, I've cut your time in half.

 

[Aldarc]

Now, see, that sounds like you've decided to be kind of a dick about this by being dismissive about how people engage in their hobbies and the thoughtful speculation they choose to engage in. For some of us, it's kind of a fun mental exercise to speculate on how a fantasy world might be affected or portrayed with certain assumptions in place - and here you are dumping on it as "elf game non-sense" as if how anybody else spends their leisure time is fodder for your judgment or if saying so somehow elevates you above that. Hint: It doesn't - it just makes you look like a dick.

Ad hominems aside, the use of "fantasy elf game" is not meant as any rude dismissal of how people engage the hobby but as a friendly reminder of the subject matter that we are engaging: not actual history with historical veracity and hardwired rules or laws, but a work of mutable fantasy fiction whose fiction has changed with every edition and even within editions.

Going back to an earlier post, @Crimson Longinus raised a point about how magic is depicted in other fiction, wherein sometimes it requires someone to be born with the "spark" of magic. One major issue is that D&D does not present a path to magic. It presents multiple paths to magic without suggesting anything resolute about what is required for magic. The source materials are even inconsistent about its frequency or prevalence. This is largely because D&D tries to walk the line between its own multiverse setting and a fantasy elf game tool kit for general purpose homebrews. And it's often afraid of saying too much that invalidates the latter.

Let's see here. In 5e magic requires bloodlines or a freak accident (e.g., Sorcerer). It can be learned in school (e.g., Bardic Colleges, Wizarding Academy, etc.). It can require a pact with a patron (e.g., Warlock). It can be learned as a craft (e.g., Artificer or even magewrights in Eberron). It can be part of a divine or primal calling associated with spiritual practices (e.g., Cleric, Druid). One can even train in arms and armor to achieve a respectable usage in magic: e.g., Paladin, Ranger, Eldritch Knight, etc. There are even bladesinging and war magic traditions that allows training in some weapons and armor while also learning wizardry. So clearly the learning of arms and magic aren't as incompatible as some imagine. No surprise. We are in a edition where the Dev's answer for nearly every class is to give it magical spells.

Or even multiclassing. Does wizardry really take that long to learn if a fighter can pick up a level of wizard after a few sessions? Is nobility truly incompatible with wizardry or sorcery when 5e presumes that you can take any background, including Noble, at 1st level? As others have reminded us, PCs may operate by different rules than NPCs, but if that's the case should we really be appealing character creation rules for wizards in AD&D or 3e to make the case about the age or stat requirements for wizards? How many wizards are out in the world? If you are the GM, the answer is as many as you need or want there to be.

This is all to say that the gateways preventing magocracies are largely of our own post hoc construction to justify the prevalent aesthetics rather than anything inherent about the fiction of D&D. It's an aesthetic rooted in things like an elderly Merlin who plays a supporting role to King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table or Gandalf the Grey/White supporting the "muggle" case of the fellowship.

The point that I raised to start this all is merely that I'm surprised that we don't see more world-building in D&D with magocracies and magically-inclined nobles. I honestly probably would not pick the Wizard as the profession of choice for nobles. Instead, I would probably pick either Sorcerers (it's all in the blood) or Bards, which strike a nice balance between arms training, jack-of-all-trades skills, charisma, diplomacy, and enchanting/illusion magic.