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.

fantasybasics.jpg

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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
I actually kind of like the idea of wealthy countries establishing big magic academies where they train thousands of students in the magic arts each year. These new mages would serve throughout the kingdom as either civil servants, business employees or independent wizards. In case of war they would be pooled together into units of battle mages. An army of undead is invading the kingdom? No sweat! A legion of battle mages is on hand to launch a volley of 10,000 fireballs into the undead horde.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?
I said it already. It takes 2d6 years to reach level 1 as a wizard training full time in 3rd edition.

I am saying it take at least 20+ years to reach 5th levels and get 3rd level spells. I'm not going by just first level as in 3/5th of editions, wizards are weak and close to useless as at level 1. You cannot just use 5e's beneficial rules to disprove the base assumption of the game. Especially since nobles aren't all flying fireball slingers in 5e either.

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

This is the whole point. PCs and NPCs are not the same. NPCs don't have the advantages of PCs.

This is why in the base assumption of D&D, all the nobles are not 5th level spellcasters or above. NPC nobles are not special enough to bypass all the hurdles D&D puts on being a true spellcaster. They only have the money and power to get access to class trainers and the training to have slightly better stats than commoners.

Sure if magic were easyand notresistive in D&D, it would make sense that nobles are all spellcasters like a shounen or shojo anime. But the baseline assumption is that nobles are not full spellcasters. So there must be a reason. And the rules, lore, and images across editions give it. Being a full spellcaster in D&D requires extreme training/study, special circumstances, or an additional allegiance to obtain.

Only PCs are expected to bypass these barriers.
 

I said it already. It takes 2d6 years to reach level 1 as a wizard training full time in 3rd edition.
5e doesn't care about 3e starting age requirements for classes or anything really. It only provides the ages which certain ancestries reach adulthood and their life expectancy. If you want to be a 16-year-old wizard in 5e, nothing is stopping you. 3e certainly is not.
 

5e doesn't care about 3e starting age requirements for classes or anything really. It only provides the ages which certain ancestries reach adulthood and their life expectancy. If you want to be a 16-year-old wizard in 5e, nothing is stopping you. 3e certainly is not.

I thought this was a general d&d topic not a 5e exclusive. The assumption that all nobles would become wizards for power doesn't work in all editions. Especially in the pre3e ones where wizards are butt for many levels and are severely limited on what they can learn.

Even 5e still uses a baseline assumption that nobles aren't all wizards and clerics. Nobles and knights are still martial like the late Medieval baseline assumption.
 

I thought this was a general d&d topic not a 5e exclusive. The assumption that all nobles would become wizards for power doesn't work in all editions. Especially in the pre3e ones where wizards are butt for many levels and are severely limited on what they can learn.

Even 5e still uses a baseline assumption that nobles aren't all wizards and clerics. Nobles and knights are still martial like the late Medieval baseline assumption.
Maybe not, but 5e exclusive but it's certainly not 3e exclusive either so we can hardly extrapolate about D&D from simply 3e. Nobles may not be all wizards and clerics, but that does not preclude them from it either. And regardless of whether nobles and knights are still martial, there are a number of magical martial traditions that I have already pointed to in the game. Plus magocracies may not even extend to wizards alone, as I have also mentioned Bards. If we were to follow your 3e-based assumptions, human bard, paladin, or ranger in 3e would all only be 15 +1d6 in starting age. So magocracies are still within the bounds of martial nobles and more courtly bards. But a ranger and paladin in 3e gets spells at 4th level, but a paladin and ranger in 5e get spells at 2nd level. So can we really extrapolate the requirements of learning spells in the world from two levels of inconsistency?
 

Maybe not, but 5e exclusive but it's certainly not 3e exclusive either so we can hardly extrapolate about D&D from simply 3e. Nobles may not be all wizards and clerics, but that does not preclude them from it either. And regardless of whether nobles and knights are still martial, there are a number of magical martial traditions that I have already pointed to in the game. Plus magocracies may not even extend to wizards alone, as I have also mentioned Bards. If we were to follow your 3e-based assumptions, human bard, paladin, or ranger in 3e would all only be 15 +1d6 in starting age. So magocracies are still within the bounds of martial nobles and more courtly bards. But a ranger and paladin in 3e gets spells at 4th level, but a paladin and ranger in 5e get spells at 2nd level. So can we really extrapolate the requirements of learning spells in the world from two levels of inconsistency?

Of course. I'm not even saying that there would be no wizards and clerics in the courts of kings and dukes. I'm just saying it won't be the majority nor norm in the base assumption.

The baseline assumption is that human age nobles take easier classes, dabble in magic via partial caster or feats, hire spellcaster full time, and buy magic items off adventurers.

Only long lived and magical inclined races would be assumed to have a large percentage of their nobility be full casters.
 

snipped

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.

Oh yeah, Bards are also an excellent choice. They are just kind of in an odd spot where I'm never quite sure how they come about.

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

I said it already. It takes 2d6 years to reach level 1 as a wizard training full time in 3rd edition.

I am saying it take at least 20+ years to reach 5th levels and get 3rd level spells. I'm not going by just first level as in 3/5th of editions, wizards are weak and close to useless as at level 1. You cannot just use 5e's beneficial rules to disprove the base assumption of the game. Especially since nobles aren't all flying fireball slingers in 5e either.

Why can't I use the rules of 5e to talk about the base assumption of 5e DnD? That seems like exactly something I should be able to do.

Also, 2d6 means an average of 7 years. So I'm going to go forward with that. An average of 7 years to hit level 1.

Now since you are insistent on not using 5e rules I'm just going to consult the chart for xp in 3.5. And okay, that is a big difference. Hitting level 3 (which has been my assumption, not hitting level 5) required 3,000 XP in 3.5. That is 3 times more than is required in 5e.

So, assuming the XP value of 16 xp per fight is still acceptable (and yes, even a level 1 3.5 wizard could aid in this hunts, because they still had spells, and I'm assuming a combat lasted less than a round per day) I'll revisit my numbers.

Starting at age 8, it takes about 7 years to reach level 1. At age 15 they begin hunting. And then, under 3.5 xp, which is three times larger than 5e (the ruleset I've been using) then it takes 30 years of hunting to reach level 3.

So, now your position makes sense. Yes, under the rules of 3.5 a nobleman will not get enough XP to level up to level three in a reasonable amount of time.

Of course, all of that goes out the window the moment you try and apply it to 5e. Because instead of 3,000 xp for level 3, it is 900. A pretty radical difference.

This is the whole point. PCs and NPCs are not the same. NPCs don't have the advantages of PCs.

This is why in the base assumption of D&D, all the nobles are not 5th level spellcasters or above. NPC nobles are not special enough to bypass all the hurdles D&D puts on being a true spellcaster. They only have the money and power to get access to class trainers and the training to have slightly better stats than commoners.

Sure if magic were easy and not restrictive in D&D, it would make sense that nobles are all spellcasters like a shounen or shojo anime. But the baseline assumption is that nobles are not full spellcasters. So there must be a reason. And the rules, lore, and images across editions give it. Being a full spellcaster in D&D requires extreme training/study, special circumstances, or an additional allegiance to obtain.

Only PCs are expected to bypass these barriers.

So, ignoring your hyperbole, I'm wondering why you are saying an NPC Archmage is a not a "true spellcaster". They cast spells, not sure what other qualifications you need for being a "true spellcaster"

Where do all of these NPC wizards come from then? No NPC has the ability to become a true spellcaster without extreme training (5e citation needed), extreme study (5e citation needed) special circumstances (5e citation needed) or allegiance... to someone, not sure who.

And, if the nobility for all their time and money and power can't learn magic... how did you make a wizard PC? Did you train under a false spellcaster, yet somehow learn the secrets to becoming a true spellcaster? Were you required to have your PC train under a former PC, since they are the only true spellcasters?

Really, this line of reasoning is opening far more questions that seem reasonable. A better line of thought seems to be... the designers want medieval europe, so they make medieval europe with nobility, and don't really consider the impact the existence of magic would have upon such a system.

It is why we still have castles, even though enough dangerous beasts can fly that having a castle is really not guaranteed to protect you. Or why humans are in charge despite the fact that Gnomes, Elves and Dwarves would live longer, receive more magical and martial training and have immensely more resources.

Because, even if getting every noble to 5th level takes a hundred years... most elves, dwarves and gnomes aren't considered adults until they are 100 years old. So, you have the humans with their shiny pointy sticks versus an army trained in the usage of magic.

Wonder who wins that fight when the your infantry line is smashed by a hundred fireballs.


Of course. I'm not even saying that there would be no wizards and clerics in the courts of kings and dukes. I'm just saying it won't be the majority nor norm in the base assumption.

The baseline assumption is that human age nobles take easier classes, dabble in magic via partial caster or feats, hire spellcaster full time, and buy magic items off adventurers.

Only long lived and magical inclined races would be assumed to have a large percentage of their nobility be full casters.

Because nothing says "I'm in charge and protecting the kingdom" like taking the easy way out and buying the services of someone who is smarter, deadlier, and necessary to your very survival.

What happens to all those nobles who buy mercenaries and rely on them to the point where their entire political structure relies on keeping the mercenaries happy?
 

Oh yeah, Bards are also an excellent choice. They are just kind of in an odd spot where I'm never quite sure how they come about.
I've been of the persuasion at least of bards being fairly popular choices among the nobility ever since Guild Wars 2. A lot of the in-game human nobles are mesmers, which is a profession that's like a blend of bard, illusionist, enchanter, and psion.
 

I look at the game as fantasy and not speculative science fiction. I can’t get into the settings like Eberron or settings with magic mart. Although great for those that like them. I like Conan and Elric like settings. Or places where the populations are kept in line of the British isles in the 5th or 6th centuries. Or I go way back and enjoy the Bronze Age settings. But that’s my taste. If I want modern things i go for call of Cthulhu or mutants and masterminds.
 

The default is PCs are the stars of the adventure. I would say heroes of the story but I have seen some you play. The rules help the stars and are the base line assumption. So world building which makes sense is a distance fourth place.
For the lore masters out there. Can you answer this question,
What is % of person having a pc class in...
AD&D 1E Greyhawk.
Forgotten Realms (Note the edition if necessary).
Eberron.
Birthright.
Other published campaigns.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top