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 or baseline setting assumed by virtually everyone when no setting is specified. Moreover, some rules (e.g. the existence of plate armor, and large horses) imply things about technology and breeding in the setting.

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

Ravenbrook

Explorer
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.
Is D&D really appropriate for that? I would think that rules systems such as Mythras or some of the grittier OSR systems would fit better. I've personally used BRP for a more realistic medieval setting. However, I think that the over-the-top magic of D&D makes it perfect for settings such as Eberron, Spelljammer, and Planescape.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
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.

You might have an argument for that. However I was going for a more edition neutral assumption.

Nobles would never do the sacrifices to be a wizard or cleric in 1e or 2 e unless they weren't inheriting. And it is still iffy in 3e and 4e.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
You might have an argument for that. However I was going for a more edition neutral assumption.

Nobles would never do the sacrifices to be a wizard or cleric in 1e or 2 e unless they weren't inheriting. And it is still iffy in 3e and 4e.
If you say so. I created many a noble who had pc classes. Some with arcane, others holy.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
If you say so. I created many a noble who had pc classes. Some with arcane, others holy.
Again, this is not a discussion of if the baseline assumption of D&D has any nobles with PC class.

It's is one of if the majority of nobles would be full casters in the baseline assumption of a D&D setting.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Again, this is not a discussion of if the baseline assumption of D&D has any nobles with PC class.

It's is one of if the majority of nobles would be full casters in the baseline assumption of a D&D setting.
And until the DM gives the % of magic users per 100, the we are just flapping our keystrokes. A lot of modules in the 1E time had a spell caster npc. Nothing in any books give a baseline.
 

lewpuls

Hero
Does anyone know of a writer or critic of fantasy fiction who has created detailed categories of setting that gamers could use? Starting with sword & sorcery, high fantasy, low fantasy, and the like, but getting more detailed? It would be interesting to see.

Literacy and Education ranges. Good addition. I was trying to discuss FRPGs as a whole, not just D&D (where I default to 1e), but D&D is the majority, isn't it?

Sometime I'll finish my revision of a demography article from long ago. Frequency of adventurers makes a huge difference in how the world works.

Speaking as a retired college teacher, training for rising in levels is highly overrated these days. Much of adventuring is "knowledge how" rather than "knowledge of" (Don Norman's terms), and you get knowledge how by doing, especially when in real danger (if you survive). Training to become a spell-caster? Depends on so much . . . that it's entirely up to the GM.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
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.

Which is fine, do what you love.

But not only do I enjoy the game far more as it is built into a truly fantasy and strange world, but I feel like to really get the feel of 5th Century Briton or the Bronze Age, you basically need to take over 50% of the book and say "this doesn't exist"

You can't have Druids, Wizards, Clerics, Paladins, Eldritch Knights, Arcane Archers, Arcane Tricksters, Artificers (official class), Bards, heck you may not be able to have Sorcerers either. The list is huge of official content you would have to ban or heavily restrict.

Finding a healing potion would be something akin to a miracle, not an item on the standard equipment list worth 50 gp.

The closer you want to get to those settings, the more of DnD you have to remove. And they can be a ton of fun, but if I'm playing DnD... I want to use all the options, not 10% of the options.

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

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.

I'm no lore expert, but 3.5's DMG had rules for this on page 139.

I could do a bunch of math to show how the chart works, but I'll just copy this with some emphasis

"Using these guidelines and the tables in the previous section, the breakdown by class and level for the population of a typical hamlet of two hundred people looks like this:
•One 1st-level aristocrat (mayor)
•One 3rd-level warrior (constable)
•Nine 1st-level warriors (two guards, seven militia members)
•One 3rd-level expert smith (militia member)
•Seven 1st-level expert crafters and professionals of various sorts
•One 1st-level adept
•One 3rd-level commoner barkeep (militia member)
•One hundred sixty-six 1st-level commoners (one is a militiamember)
One 3rd-level fighter
•Two 1st-level fighters
•One 1st-level wizard

One 3rd-level cleric
•Two 1st-level clerics

•One 1st-level druid
•One 3rd-level rogue
•Two 1st-level rogues
•One 1st-level bard
•One 1st-level monk


And this is a hamlet, the second smallest unit. In a large city, you add +9 and rolling 3 times instead of instead of the -2, and are dealing with over 12,000 people

So, just adding nine to the results would say that the "typical large city" would have at a bare minimum

One level 10 wizard
Two level 5 wizards
Four level 3 Wizards
Eight level 1 Wizards

For a total of a bare minimum of 15 wizards in the city. Max? 45.

And that was 3.5's assumption, with the triple difficulty of XP compared to 5e.

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

You might have an argument for that. However I was going for a more edition neutral assumption.

Nobles would never do the sacrifices to be a wizard or cleric in 1e or 2 e unless they weren't inheriting. And it is still iffy in 3e and 4e.

Considering the only sacrifice seems to be not knowing how to use weapons. I don't buy that people would forgo power like that.

Especially given what I posted above, because if that 10th level wizard isn't a noble, the nobles have a problem.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
"Using these guidelines and the tables in the previous section, the breakdown by class and level for the population of a typical hamlet of two hundred people looks like this:
1 level 1 wizard per 200 people pretty much matches what I thought.

0.5% of the population.

Notice that there are 3 fighters, 3 clerics, and 3 rogues.
Considering the only sacrifice seems to be not knowing how to use weapons. I don't buy that people would forgo power like that.
Few weapons, No armor, no bonus skills*, worse attack routine, and the worst HD.

Oh it's a major sacrifice for a NPC who wont have an awesome ability array. Especially in 1e, 2, and 3e, where low level human wizards are weak.

*except 3e

Especially given what I posted above, because if that 10th level wizard isn't a noble, the nobles have a problem.
Oh course he or she is.
The point is at court, he or she is the only local 10th level wizard at the ball. And there are only a smathering of other wizards there as well. If they pry themselves from their books. Most of the other nobles would not be full casters. The nobility with any magic would be people of foreign origin, different races, or people with a feat that gives them a few spells or cantrips.

The baseline assumption is that you only see a nobily full of mages if they go the 4E NV Tiefling route and all become warlocks or they go into a breeding program like Crusader Kings and intermarry with a bunch of sorcerers.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
1 level 1 wizard per 200 people pretty much matches what I thought.

0.5% of the population.

Notice that there are 3 fighters, 3 clerics, and 3 rogues.

I never once said that fighters and rouges would be less common than wizards. You did say Clerics would be though.

And, if you want to say 0.5% of the population... I think it is fair to say that the Capitol of a kingdom would be a Large City, right? That means they might have around 20,000 citizens. That is 100 wizards, on average. Not a single on of them a noble, and all of them having spent decades doing nothing but studying magic.

Lets assume five duchies, each with at least the entire population of the capitol on their lands. We are now at an average of 600 wizards

That seems to be a rather significant population. Consuming thousands of gold worth of profits and spending decades doing nothing.

Few weapons, No armor, no bonus skills*, worse attack routine, and the worst HD.

Oh it's a major sacrifice for a NPC who wont have an awesome ability array. Especially in 1e, 2, and 3e, where low level human wizards are weak.

*except 3e

This is almost amusing at this point.

So we need 3.X level advancement and weapons skills, 2e skills (because wizards had the most in 3.X, the same in 5e and I believe the same in 4e) , probably 2e health.

How many different editions are you blending together for your assumptions at this point? I mean, I get why, taking the 5e assumptions removes your argument fairly thoroughly, so you have to keep mobile.

Oh course he or she is.
The point is at court, he or she is the only local 10th level wizard at the ball. And there are only a smathering of other wizards there as well. If they pry themselves from their books. Most of the other nobles would not be full casters. The nobility with any magic would be people of foreign origin, different races, or people with a feat that gives them a few spells or cantrips.

The baseline assumption is that you only see a nobily full of mages if they go the 4E NV Tiefling route and all become warlocks or they go into a breeding program like Crusader Kings and intermarry with a bunch of sorcerers.

Wow... no.

The idea that all of the wizards who were nobility are foreigners or other races is just exoticism. Humans have no restriction on becoming wizards, and "foreigners" would likely still be humans, and you don't ship someone you spent decades training and funding to a foreign court. (Also, no feats to get spells and cantrips, since you are assuming 3.X or 2e, unless you also want to assume 5e simultaneously)

Also, a tenth level wizard NPC would be dead by the numbers you were throwing out before of needing 30 years to reach level 5.

But, at this point, I think you have to admit that the "base assumption" is just bcause people aren't willing to fully explore the idea of mages being nobility. It is requiring nobles who do not fight, magic that requires decades of study to even become a novice, along with a healthy population of these novices and master wizards who just appear when needed for plot.

Scratch the surface and this just falls apart.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Few weapons, No armor, no bonus skills*, worse attack routine, and the worst HD.

Oh it's a major sacrifice for a NPC who wont have an awesome ability array. Especially in 1e, 2, and 3e, where low level human wizards are weak.
And you are still an educated noble, who likely can afford guards or have a retinue of followers. So what's the issue? Also, there is an assumption here that "weapons, armor, attack routine, and HD" are higher goods than magic, but that is not necessarily the case in a world of magic. Maybe in a world without magic, but not necessarily one with magic.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top