• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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
Hey, that's fine for you, but you realize not everyone plays that way right? I mean, I play with heroic characters, but I don't play with characters who ignore the rules of reality.
It a core assumption of D&D and has been since 1st edition. There isn't a D&D setting that doesn't make it. It's an essential conceit without which D&D simply doesn't work.

If you built a world where everyone had a character class it would be very different to any D&D setting ever, with no hunger - anyone can create a meal by magic, no poverty, instantaneous travel, no monsters and no need for heroes.

To quote The Incredibles, when everyone is a hero, no one is.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I should probably add that this conceit is not unique to D&D, but is common to most fiction that has some sort of heroic storyline.

Consider Jessica Fletcher. She has stumbled over hundreds of corpses. Is this normal for her world? Is the murder rate so high that everyone can expect to find a body every week? No, she finds all those bodies because Jessica Fletcher follows different rules to the other people in her world.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
That was something you never stated until just now, that 1st level magic is too weak to be useful to nobles, because they are rich.
I've have always been taking about the noble getting to 3rd level spells after 3-4 decades of study because 1st level spells being weak. And it not being worth it.
But, I've made my points, and you seem bound and determined to stay back in 2nd edition with your assumptions. While most of the rest of the thread wants to tell me that no baseline exists
5e DMG uses this assumption. In the DMG and PHB, nobles aren't all wizards and magocracies are not common.

Your ability to buy 3rd level spell is not even listed because it is assumed to be purely DM fiat that you can even find city with a 5th level caster selling their services.

Oh. And a lot of the leaders in the Greyhawk Gazetteer are fighters and rogues. There are some wizards but the spread nudges to the idea that wizardry has a huge gulf between the name levels and the newbies and that the former are not super common.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
It a core assumption of D&D and has been since 1st edition. There isn't a D&D setting that doesn't make it. It's an essential conceit without which D&D simply doesn't work.

If you built a world where everyone had a character class it would be very different to any D&D setting ever, with no hunger - anyone can create a meal by magic, no poverty, instantaneous travel, no monsters and no need for heroes.

To quote The Incredibles, when everyone is a hero, no one is.

Okay, there is a difference between "My character is a wizard who studied magic, and any person who studied magic can do the same thing" and "every potato farmer is a wizard"

And, as t AbdulAlhazred posted, there was an assumption in Greyhawk that in Troupe Play, an NPC follower might become a PC. How would this be possible? Does the divine spark of specialness pass from the dead PC to the follower like the energy from Highlander?

Or, just maybe, is it possible that the other people in the setting can do similar things to the PCs?

I mean, take Batman since we want to keep throwing character examples. He is a martial artist and a detective. Is it impossible for anyone else to learn karate or deductive reasoning just because batman can do it? I mean, he is special, so if he is special and unique then is every single one of his skills special and unique? No one else could learn to do the things he does?

Because that is what you are saying. You are saying that it is impossible for anyone else to learn magic and become a wizard in the same amount of time. Which then leads to this sort of scenario:

My PC wizard is a special and unique individual, able to learn magic by 30.
Oh, and that farm boy I found and am training is also special and unique.
Oh, and since we died in that fight, this new guy over here is also special and unique.
So is his sister
And that thief that we caught stealing our stuff
Turns out the innkeeper's daughter is also special and unique and able to learn magic quickly.
Oh and this entire coven of necromancers.


What was that thing you misquoted? when everyone is a [special], no one is.


I've have always been taking about the noble getting to 3rd level spells after 3-4 decades of study because 1st level spells being weak. And it not being worth it.

Funny how I've specified that I've been talking first, maybe second level spells this entire time, and done so multiple times, and only now you decide to reveal that you've been talking 3rd level spells this entire time, because the things I listed out were never worth their time to learn.

Almost seems like an assumption you should have shared sooner, when I said I was talking about only getting up to 3rd level as a character (as in, 2nd level spells. 3rd level in the class)

5e DMG uses this assumption. In the DMG and PHB, nobles aren't all wizards and magocracies are not common.

Your ability to buy 3rd level spell is not even listed because it is assumed to be purely DM fiat that you can even find city with a 5th level caster selling their services.

Oh. And a lot of the leaders in the Greyhawk Gazetteer are fighters and rogues. There are some wizards but the spread nudges to the idea that wizardry has a huge gulf between the name levels and the newbies and that the former are not super common.

I had forgotten that the PHB listed magic as something you can just buy. Since I've only ever been talking about getting 1st and 2nd level spells, that would indicate that the PHB agrees with me. Up to 3 levels of wizard is so easy that you can assume there is one selling his services in most cities.

Which then follows from my points. If magic is that easy, why would people not learn it? Well, it would be expensive and require a higher education. Things that would pose no barrier to the nobility, who would see the power offered by magic as something they would want. Hence, more nobles would become magic-users.

Also, fun series of questions about Greyhawk Gazeteer.

1) Are we to assume that becoming a 9th level fighter is substantial harder than becoming a 9th level wizard? It hasn't been for the last three editions of the game

2) If we have 9th level rogues and fighters do you know what that means? 9th level Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters are viable. How powerful is their magic? Why, second level spells, the same level I've been speaking towards.

3) Are any of those nobles listed as Eldritch Knights or Arcane Tricksters? No, of course not. Because Greyhawk was created before those classes existed. The idea of a magical subclass of fighter is completely new to this edition of the game. And I don't mean gishes, or presitge classes, I mean "I took my 5th level of fighter and gained a new spell because of it" style of subclass.


So, in 5e, it would be completely approapriate to have Nerof Gasgal as an Arcane Trickster, level 12, right on the cusp of learning 3rd level magic spells. Just translating him from 2e to 5e.
 

I had forgotten that the PHB listed magic as something you can just buy. Since I've only ever been talking about getting 1st and 2nd level spells, that would indicate that the PHB agrees with me. Up to 3 levels of wizard is so easy that you can assume there is one selling his services in most cities.

Which then follows from my points. If magic is that easy, why would people not learn it? Well, it would be expensive and require a higher education. Things that would pose no barrier to the nobility, who would see the power offered by magic as something they would want. Hence, more nobles would become magic-users.
This is a complete non sequitur. That some people can learn magic and that those people are common enough that in larger settlements you're likely to find a person who have done so in no way implies that learning magic is 'easy' and anyone can do it. In fact that such services are sold relies on certain amount of rarity, because otherwise people would just learn to do it themselves. Furthermore, as this indeed is a service that can be bought, it very much means that wealthy can just hire a wizard, just like they would hire any other sort of specialist when they needed. A setting where the talentless upper class twits are routinely brute forced to be wizards only exists in your head. And that's fine, if you want to run that sort of a game, nothing in the rules is stopping you. But AFAIK, not even the most magic heavy of the official settings work that way.
 

Okay, there is a difference between "My character is a wizard who studied magic, and any person who studied magic can do the same thing" and "every potato farmer is a wizard"
There are no potato farmers in your world, as there is no potato farmer class.
And, as t AbdulAlhazred posted, there was an assumption in Greyhawk that in Troupe Play, an NPC follower might become a PC. How would this be possible? Does the divine spark of specialness pass from the dead PC to the follower like the energy from Highlander?
Yes. If an NPC becomes a PC they then follow PC rules. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

The thing is D&D only has rules for adventuring heroes. It is not a world simulator. The only model we can use for a D&D setting is real world history. But in real world history magic and monsters are not real. So in order to use the real world to model our fantasy world we assume magic and monsters have no significant impact outside a small bubble around the party.
Or, just maybe, is it possible that the other people in the setting can do similar things to the PCs?

I mean, take Batman since we want to keep throwing character examples. He is a martial artist and a detective. Is it impossible for anyone else to learn karate or deductive reasoning just because batman can do it? I mean, he is special, so if he is special and unique then is every single one of his skills special and unique? No one else could learn to do the things he does?
That is correct, just read the comics. It's not uncommon for someone to don a costume and try and emulate Batman. And they are dead before the end of the issue.

Batman can't do what he does because of his training, or because he is smart, or rich.

Batman does what he does because HE IS BATMAN.

Because that is what you are saying. You are saying that it is impossible for anyone else to learn magic and become a wizard in the same amount of time. Which then leads to this sort of scenario:

My PC wizard is a special and unique individual, able to learn magic by 30.
Oh, and that farm boy I found and am training is also special and unique.
Oh, and since we died in that fight, this new guy over here is also special and unique.
So is his sister
And that thief that we caught stealing our stuff
Turns out the innkeeper's daughter is also special and unique and able to learn magic quickly.
Oh and this entire coven of necromancers.
Yes. Every player character in D&D is the chosen one. If you are not the chosen one then the story isn't about you.

And the people they encounter are special too. Not as special - they use NPC stat blocks. But there may be only one coven of necromancers on the planet, but the PCs will bump into it the same way Jessica Fletcher bumps into corpses.
 

Oh. And a lot of the leaders in the Greyhawk Gazetteer are fighters and rogues. There are some wizards but the spread nudges to the idea that wizardry has a huge gulf between the name levels and the newbies and that the former are not super common.
I wasn't arguing that wizards are just as common as fighters. Just that they make up a substantial percentage of rulers (and thus presumably of other ranks in the nobility, since all these societies are pretty much structured that way). If I extend that to 'casters', then we have to count the clerics, druids and rangers as well, and the bards (though I don't recall a bardic NPC listed). Then there are 'magical figures' like dragons and such which also appear in small numbers.

But if you go back to the DMG, there are certainly 1 classed figure per 100 humans (1 per 50 demi-humans). 20% of these are magic users (of which about 15% are illusionists). Another 20% are clerics. Specialized classes aren't touched upon, but presumably there are also rangers amongst the fighters (which are 44% of all classed NPCs). The DMG never attempts to pin down level distribution amongst this group. However, we see that class abilities in the level 1-3 range are quite common amongst NPCs in the encounter tables, the Monster Manual, etc. Figures with class abilities up to 6-7th level are typical leader types in many groups (orcs, bandits, pirates, merchants, patrols, etc.). Given the types and levels of followers as another input, we can conclude that NPCs up to 3rd level in various classes are not exceptional. They form the basic professional cadre of military and other combat-adjacent professions. Presumably a large percentage of them are drawn from the nobility in a medievalistic feudalistic type of setting.

So we can conclude that the nobility contains quite a range of casters, which make up as much as 45% of all classed NPCs. The DMG does go on, in the following sections to explain logically how most PCs and their associates are probably nobility, and the rest are probably from wealthy backgrounds of other types. I would think it wouldn't be going too far to say that the vast majority, maybe practically all, magic users are thus noble, though of course few of them will be titled. Still, we see from Greyhawk that titled magic users are a thing, if somewhat less common. Likewise for clerics, though a ruling cleric does at least least imply some sort of theocratic state structure. Still, many medieval prelates were powerful nobles in their own right, there's no reason to assume this is not the case in D&D worlds.

Honestly, the idea that people would study magic/devote themselves to the priesthood and NOT use the powers gained thus to become influential and assume leadership positions in the world seems absurd. While some wizards are no doubt recluses or whatever, I question whether that would even be realistically the best route to success. As we see with the top levels of science and other pursuits in the real world, collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas, studying with other master, etc. is the most common recipe for great success. Even in ancient times philosophers banded together to discuss their ideas and advance their knowledge. IMHO the most advanced wizards would be situated in seats of power, and if not being actual rulers would be vital associates of those who were, and often quite active in the intellectual, spiritual, and political life of their communities. In fact, most of the rules of AD&D, and its settings (which are pretty much all extant settings, except Eberron) seem to envisage that.

So, while I can buy the argument that some rulers with mediocre personal magic talent are best advised to advance as fighters, etc. it seems perfectly natural and reasonable to assume that a significant subset are magically inclined. At the highest levels, those figures will undoubtedly be the most powerful in existence, as nothing really tops a high level wizard or cleric! In fact it would seem to me that such would almost inevitably rule whatever they wanted (and thus we must conclude they have a lot of equivalent competition, since they don't).
 

There are no potato farmers in your world, as there is no potato farmer class.

Yes. If an NPC becomes a PC they then follow PC rules. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

The thing is D&D only has rules for adventuring heroes. It is not a world simulator. The only model we can use for a D&D setting is real world history. But in real world history magic and monsters are not real. So in order to use the real world to model our fantasy world we assume magic and monsters have no significant impact outside a small bubble around the party.

That is correct, just read the comics. It's not uncommon for someone to don a costume and try and emulate Batman. And they are dead before the end of the issue.

Batman can't do what he does because of his training, or because he is smart, or rich.

Batman does what he does because HE IS BATMAN.


Yes. Every player character in D&D is the chosen one. If you are not the chosen one then the story isn't about you.

And the people they encounter are special too. Not as special - they use NPC stat blocks. But there may be only one coven of necromancers on the planet, but the PCs will bump into it the same way Jessica Fletcher bumps into corpses.
I would point out that this 'chosen one ideology' is definitely not compatible with most definitions of OSR, which see even PCs as, at most, unusually bold and fairly talented individuals who choose to be adventurers. Obviously the choice of who becomes a PC is thoroughly gamist and drawing any inference about the nature of the setting from it should be dubious at best.

I do basically agree with the gist of your thought though, PCs, and anything they encounter or touch upon, is not 'normal', it is part of a dramatic 'bubble' in which they operate. I don't believe that what the PCs see and do should be taken to be indicative of exactly how the world works. Unlike the OSR sort of precept I would adhere to a dramatic/narrative precept which simply says that the PCs are the protagonists of a fantastical story and they encounter and achieve fantastical things. Whatever they meet upon the way is what was put there in order to achieve that end. If it paints a picture of a world, it is merely for the sake of background and motivation, or color, and grounds the PCs actions in a milieu. I think this would also comport with pretty much every fantasy movie ever made.
 

It's more common to call out the chosen one trope in fantasy "Bilbo was meant to find the ring, and not by it's maker. If so, you where also meant to have it"; "Luke, I am your father". But even away from fantasy heroes have superhuman capabilities with no in universe explanation, e.g. John McClane in Die Hard, which, if you think about it, is even more fantastical.

The point is, it's entertainment, you aren't meant to think about it.
 

It goes back a long way too. Just look at Beowulf. The king and all his knights can't defeat Grendel, but in walks a mysterious stranger from who knows where and he defeats the monster not only single handed, but unarmed.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top