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 haven't argued that. Some people have argued that 'it just makes sense' that most nobles would be wizards and that it is perhaps weird that in many D&D settings this is not the case. I've merely tried to explain how a typical rare-wizard setting would operate and how it makes perfect sense. If you alter your assumptions, common-wizard setting could work too. Either makes sense if you want it to, as this is purely a fluff issue and not a rule one.
My apologies then. I do understand how rare-wizard settings would operate. My point that started this all was my general surprise that we don't see more magocracies when it comes to world-building, particularly in the implicit context of D&D, though I do understand that this likely stems mainly from prior aesthetics inherited from the fiction and folklore that initially influenced D&D. But the idea that magocracies inherently somehow doesn't make sense or that non-magocratic nobility in D&D somehow makes more sense is equally non-sensical to me as this is indeed mainly a fluff issue rather than any inherent truth of the fiction, much as I pointed out earlier to @Minigiant.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A decade is not a reasonable timeframe. It is a long frickin time. I might not be able to teach someone high level math in a year or two, but a decade of dedicated education from a single consistent teacher?

Yes. Anyone can learn pretty much anything in that situation, because it is not a reasonable timeframe.
Have you tried it? I'm a maths teacher, and I can tell you from experience, that is simply wrong.

Some people can pick up high level maths in a couple of months (in which case there is little for the teacher to do apart from stay out of their way). But others can't lean basic arithmetic in 10 years (typical schooling period). You could carry on teaching them for 100 years and those numbers still would make no sense to them.
 

My apologies then. I do understand how rare-wizard settings would operate. My point that started this all was my general surprise that we don't see more magocracies when it comes to world-building, particularly in the implicit context of D&D, though I do understand that this likely stems mainly from prior aesthetics inherited from the fiction and folklore that initially influenced D&D. But the idea that magocracies inherently somehow doesn't make sense or that non-magocratic nobility in D&D somehow makes more sense is equally non-sensical to me as this is indeed mainly a fluff issue rather than any inherent truth of the fiction, much as I pointed out earlier to @Minigiant.

Magocracies can of course make sense. If you want magocracies to be the typical form of government throughout the setting then that is super easy, just say learning magic is barely an inconvenience just like Chaosmancer thinks it is. Now if one wants them to exist in a world where most of the setting operates in the classic rare-wizard manner, the nobles mostly being mundane, then it requires some thinking why some nations would be able to do it differently. If you want one nation to have the ruling class to be magic nobles, then I think making them sorcerers would work well (I think you already said this earlier.) You would get all sort of typical noble arranged marriages to preserve the purity of blood crap with magic on top. Now if learning magic is hard, I don't think wizardly hereditary magocracies would work very well, as it would commonly be the case that the heir is unable to become a wizard. I think wizard-based magocracies would perhaps operate more like theocracies, people from different backgrounds rising though the ranks. Something like the medieval Papal States, just archmages instead of bishops, the supreme archmage instead of the pope.
 
Last edited:

This is more empty post hoc mumbo jumbo.

It's not.

I didn't want to say it but.

the reason why you don't see wizard based magocracies that aren't evil or elven is wizard player elitism in the D&D community. Wizard players and wizard fans have made being a proper wizard so hard and so taxing that only the few super special brainiacs can handle the training and make it past the initial levels.

Sorcerer-magocracies, warlock-magocracies, and cleric theocracies are fine. 4e uses a warlock-magocracy as the reason for all the tieflings. However a wizard based government where all the nobles and royals are wizards? Nope. Only if they are evil, elven, or already fallen. Many fans won't have it any other way. They want wizardry so hard that eventually the ambitious destroy any system made to mass produce them. Their desire is for any time the rare-wizard setting attempt to becommon a common-wizard setting, it goes bad.
 

It's not.

I didn't want to say it but.

the reason why you don't see wizard based magocracies that aren't evil or elven is wizard player elitism in the D&D community. Wizard players and wizard fans have made being a proper wizard so hard and so taxing that only the few super special brainiacs can handle the training and make it past the initial levels.

Sorcerer-magocracies, warlock-magocracies, and cleric theocracies are fine. 4e uses a warlock-magocracy as the reason for all the tieflings. However a wizard based government where all the nobles and royals are wizards? Nope. Only if they are evil, elven, or already fallen. Many fans won't have it any other way. They want wizardry so hard that eventually the ambitious destroy any system made to mass produce them. Their desire is for any time the rare-wizard setting attempt to becommon a common-wizard setting, it goes bad.
Well that certainly is an interesting line of reasoning...
 


The reason why I personally prefer settings where magic is somewhat rare is that if magic is commonly understood and reliably applicable it ceases to be mysterious and stops feeling, well magical. It just becomes another form of technology, and when I play or run a fantasy game I don't want that. YMMV.
 

Well that certainly is an interesting line of reasoning...
I do find a common underling elitism for wizards being a reason why the default assuming has them be rare.

I also think the growth of popularity of sorcerers and warlocks being sprouted from the desire to have arcane magic without that sort of specialness and an expansion of stories that can be told about arcanists.

The reason why I personally prefer settings where magic is somewhat rare is that if magic is commonly understood and reliably applicable it ceases to be mysterious and stops feeling, well magical. It just becomes another form of technology, and when I play or run a fantasy game I don't want that. YMMV.

I prefer my magic to keep its wonder by being old and not so much rely of rarity. Like the same spells and magic items have been floating around for centuries or millennia. Magic could be a technology but it is so difficult to master that the legacy of most mages would be the one spell they invent and teach their apprentices or the half dozen magic swords, armors, and rings they made for family and friends.

You know puling the wonder away from the elitism of arcanists and more that arcanist cannot do proper research because of the lack of wealth, safety, and political freedom and the feats of magic you see are them barreling through the struggles and searching for the research of the mages who died on their journeys

That's why I love the defaultassumption of wizards copying the spellbooks of others. It nudges the idea that solo research of magic takes so long that so arewilling to delve into tombs and tombs to borrow the knowledge of long dead wizards to speed up the process. Also explains the high elves being long lived, unimaginative, magical elitists who wont share their knowledge with nonelves.
 

I don't know what sort of education you have, but I've spent a far longer than a decade on studying.

On a single subject matter? To get only a basic, level understanding of the material?

Or are you talking about studying a wide range of subjects, with multiple instructors presented a variety of opinions, and pushing you into more and more specialized areas of study?

No. Other gifted children too, but those are sponsored by the nobles and thus are indebted to them.

Missing the point. I was focused on the noble's perception, connecting that sentence to the ideas that followed.

Why would the magic be the only avenue for the prestige? Why put your upper class twit offspring into the wizard school to fail miserably and embarrass the whole family? Let them play polo or something.

Sure, go ahead and tell every other noble family that your scion is too stupid to understand the intricate workings of magic, and that he would rather spend his time in leisurely pursuits.

I'm sure that will have no political implications for your house at all.

And sure, magic isn't the only route to prestige, but it is more powerful and shows a mastery of not only knowledge but of the world. So, it is the path with the most prestige. For what shows your right to rule more than ruling the very fabric of existence?


Yes, you can say either and either can make sense in your setting if you want to. But neither has anything to do with the rules of the game.

Except for how common and easy the rules show magic to be. Which is a lot.

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

Have you tried it? I'm a maths teacher, and I can tell you from experience, that is simply wrong.

Some people can pick up high level maths in a couple of months (in which case there is little for the teacher to do apart from stay out of their way). But others can't lean basic arithmetic in 10 years (typical schooling period). You could carry on teaching them for 100 years and those numbers still would make no sense to them.

I have tried it.

I typically have a half an hour, I am typically the second or third teacher to try and explain this particular concept to them, with no knowledge of how they were taught any of the previous building blocks and how I might use that scaffolding to show them how to reach the next step. And I'm usually splitting my attention between ten and twenty students.


And yes, sometimes, with those limitations, I can't explain a concept to someone. And sometimes, actually fairly often, I've been told "That makes so much more sense than how the math teacher explained it to me."


But, I want you to try and picture a different school system for a moment Paul. You don't get the student for a single 45 minute period, having met them after they were taught by a dozen other teachers before you. Instead, you are the teacher teaching them every concept of math, from beginning to end for a decade. You don't have to wonder if they were taught a concept poorly, or are using a bad method to solve the problems, because you taught them those things too. You don't have to wonder if they can handle this new subject, because you have been an integral part of their education for their entire life, and you know exactly how they think and where they will struggle, because you've guided them around those struggles for years.

Excepting for Dyscalculia, are you honestly going to tell me that you would find teaching calculus to a single student after being their only dedicated, year round teacher since they learned what the number 1 is would not be radically easier than our current system of public education?

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


Magocracies can of course make sense. If you want magocracies to be the typical form of government throughout the setting then that is super easy, just say learning magic is barely an inconvenience just like Chaosmancer thinks it is. Now if one wants them to exist in a world where most of the setting operates in the classic rare-wizard manner, the nobles mostly being mundane, then it requires some thinking why some nations would be able to do it differently. If you want one nation to have the ruling class to be magic nobles, then I think making them sorcerers would work well (I think you already said this earlier.) You would get all sort of typical noble arranged marriages to preserve the purity of blood crap with magic on top. Now if learning magic is hard, I don't think wizardly hereditary magocracies would work very well, as it would commonly be the case that the heir is unable to become a wizard. I think wizard-based magocracies would perhaps operate more like theocracies, people from different backgrounds rising though the ranks. Something like the medieval Papal States, just archmages instead of bishops, the supreme archmage instead of the pope.

I can agree with most of your reasoning, I just want to focus on that bolded bit.

Minigiant and I started this discussion with him putting forth the idea that the rare-wizard setting is the norm, per the rules.

I propose that the current edition of DnD does not follow that model. Magic is not rare in 5e. It is not this field of study so far above mortal understanding that we are using Quantum Physics and String Theory as the starting point for the simplest aspects of it.

The most of the settings we have were created when the former style was true and the latter was not, but I think that should be changing if we go with the assumptions of this edition of DnD. Because the latter holds more true to what is presented to us in the books than the former.

If you want rare-magic, you can do it, but you have to work for it. If you want more common magic, you don't have to really change a thing, the rules provide you with plenty to work with.

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


It's not.

I didn't want to say it but.

the reason why you don't see wizard based magocracies that aren't evil or elven is wizard player elitism in the D&D community. Wizard players and wizard fans have made being a proper wizard so hard and so taxing that only the few super special brainiacs can handle the training and make it past the initial levels.

Sorcerer-magocracies, warlock-magocracies, and cleric theocracies are fine. 4e uses a warlock-magocracy as the reason for all the tieflings. However a wizard based government where all the nobles and royals are wizards? Nope. Only if they are evil, elven, or already fallen. Many fans won't have it any other way. They want wizardry so hard that eventually the ambitious destroy any system made to mass produce them. Their desire is for any time the rare-wizard setting attempt to becommon a common-wizard setting, it goes bad.

And that is a poor reason to build a setting on. People who want to be the one and only special person who can do X are bad for any setting with grounding in logic.

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


The reason why I personally prefer settings where magic is somewhat rare is that if magic is commonly understood and reliably applicable it ceases to be mysterious and stops feeling, well magical. It just becomes another form of technology, and when I play or run a fantasy game I don't want that. YMMV.

I get that to a degree but I am reminded of a video I recently saw on the value of soft-magic in the LoTR.

The author pointed out that the soft magic of the ring's corruption and how it worked fit the thematic overlay of PTSD and how a man returning from World War One felt about his return to his normal life. It works because it is symbolic.


DnD magic doesn't work like that. You can't cast a spell that "slowly corrupts the heart and mind". We need to define it, we need to explain how it works, otherwise it is purely a roleplaying exercise. Which is great for plot points, but not for the magic players and DMs use to interact with the world.

DnD magic, by the nature of being part of the game, is inherently more suited for hard magic systems and being used as technology. I fully understand and appreciate the desire for it to be a softer magic, with more symbolism, but again, that requires more work than simply letting the system exist as it is.
 

I'll focus on these following points from your wall on text instead of addressing how it is such a huge disgrace to the royal family that the Prince of Wales is naughty word at quantum physics and other irrelevancies like that.

Except for how common and easy the rules show magic to be. Which is a lot.
This is still an utterly baseless and nonsensical assertion. Player can choose their character to be a tiefling, a goliath a wizard or a paladin. None of this has anything to do with how common these things are in the setting.

I get that to a degree but I am reminded of a video I recently saw on the value of soft-magic in the LoTR.

The author pointed out that the soft magic of the ring's corruption and how it worked fit the thematic overlay of PTSD and how a man returning from World War One felt about his return to his normal life. It works because it is symbolic.


DnD magic doesn't work like that. You can't cast a spell that "slowly corrupts the heart and mind". We need to define it, we need to explain how it works, otherwise it is purely a roleplaying exercise. Which is great for plot points, but not for the magic players and DMs use to interact with the world.

DnD magic, by the nature of being part of the game, is inherently more suited for hard magic systems and being used as technology. I fully understand and appreciate the desire for it to be a softer magic, with more symbolism, but again, that requires more work than simply letting the system exist as it is.
For a system that uses rules, the function of magic of course needs to be defined in those rules. However, it may still appear mysterious and poorly understood to the general populace of the setting. It depends on how you present it. This is really again more about the fluff rather than the rules.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top