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
You miss the point, but let me put it this way.

I can make any PC and have them meet the requirements for learning arcane magic. Now, maybe every PC ever made is in fact a capable abstract mathematician with a head for 4th dimensional geometry. But, if I'm playing an INT 6 Barbarian, that is unlikely to be the case, and I can still take Magical Adept or Ritual Caster at level 4.

That is what I meant by any character. Not that I can make level 1 wizards, but that I can take any existing character and find a way to add arcane magic to their repertoire. And there are almost no limits on that. No feat chains, no Int prereqs, so saying that to learn arcane magic you need to have some special skill... it just is not supported by the mechanics.

You can add it in the lore, sure, but there is nothing to support it.

Yes you can take those feats and choose any class or race. And it is blatantly absurd to equate this to any person in the setting being able to do this. Your point is simply nonsensical. A player being able to choose a thing for their character is not the same than a person in the setting being able to choose it. Even on later levels you can choose to multiclass into any sorcerer bloodline, by your logic every person in the setting is descended from every magical bloodline!

Well... I've only been talking about how useful level 1 spells are. So yes, seems worth it. Who cares about DC? You don't need a DC for Mage Armor, Alarm, Shield, Find Familiar, Sleep.

Even if I went back to older editions, lots of spells that don't require a DC.

Not sure about this "failing to learn spells thing" must be another obstacle that only existed in older editions. But, it also likely wouldn't be a major problem.

Again, we aren't making a wizard who is going to be going out and fighting orc hordes or banishing demons. I'm looking at low level simple magics. How much money do you save on repairs to very expensive dresses and tunics with prestidigitation and mending? That alone could potentially save a noble family hundreds of gold over a few decades. For very very little cost.
Repairing clothes is definitely a job for a hireling, whether they did it via magic or by hand. Nobles have servants to do a lot of the useful utility stuff that low-level spells can accomplish.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
It might be because it is late, but this doesn't make any sense in regards to my post.

Yes, masters are people who are established. That is an obvious fact.

No idea what you mean by "master progression stalls as apprentices seem to catch up" Unless you are talking about levels? But that has nothing to do with the number of wizards being trained, which was my point

The point is there can be a lot of magic and magic items floating around without arcane magic being easy.

Plus those +1 swords and magic cloaks can be millennia old and change dozens of hands. Every castle and every dungeon having magic swords doesn't mean magic craft is simple.


And other editions don't have requirements to choose a class, nor features heavily based on your Intelligence which pose an impediment to the type of magic we are talking about.
Therefore you cannot use 5e very permissive rules to describe an assumption that includes 1e and 2e restrictions. Your weight to each edition has to be semi equal.

Well... I've only been talking about how useful level 1 spells are. So yes, seems worth it. Who cares about DC? You don't need a DC for Mage Armor, Alarm, Shield, Find Familiar, Sleep.
And if you are a rich noble with servants who are forced to be loyal and need jobs, you can hire servants to do all of these for coppers and maintain a d8 HD and some profiencies.


Again, we aren't making a wizard who is going to be going out and fighting orc hordes or banishing demons. I'm looking at low level simple magics. How much money do you save on repairs to very expensive dresses and tunics with prestidigitation and mending? That alone could potentially save a noble family hundreds of gold over a few decades. For very very little cost.

Mend my own suit like a commoner? Why is my formalwear getting so damages and why isn't my servants handling it?

Not to forget how much it cost it is to hire a magic tutor for a half decade.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Yes you can take those feats and choose any class or race. And it is blatantly absurd to equate this to any person in the setting being able to do this. Your point is simply nonsensical. A player being able to choose a thing for their character is not the same than a person in the setting being able to choose it. Even on later levels you can choose to multiclass into any sorcerer bloodline, by your logic every person in the setting is descended from every magical bloodline!

Fine, if we are going to go this route

It is blatantly absurd to propose anyone can learn to wield a weapon proficiently

It is blatantly absurd (and actually by RAW false) to say that Wizards can't wear armor.

It is blatantly absurd to say that Wizards are have low health

It is blatantly absurd to say that Arcane magic and martial training are mutually exclusive.


Now that we've said everything is absurd, lets go back to thinking this through. Sorcerers you are right, would by default need to have a person born of the blood to use magic. That is definitionally what a sorcerer is. Arcane magic is not only wielded by sorcerers, and both Wizards and Bards are classes about being taught to use magic. Not born with it.

Therefore, saying that someone must be born with the ability to use magic means they are a sorcerer. A wizard is someone who was born without the ability to use magic, and had to learn how to use magic. That is the point of the class.

Can every single person learn every single subject with equal ease? No. But despite the fact that I suck with foreign languages, I could learn it. It would take longer and I would be bad at speaking the language, but I could learn. Saying that people can't learn magic unless they were born with the capability of learning magic goes against the theme of the class and the fantasy involved. You might as well say that every Wizard needs to make a deal with a devil to earn their magic.

Repairing clothes is definitely a job for a hireling, whether they did it via magic or by hand. Nobles have servants to do a lot of the useful utility stuff that low-level spells can accomplish.

Sure, but you had to pay those servants, and you wouldn't let your local servant repair a 1,000 gp dress made by an esteemed dressmaker out of rare spider-silks.

And no amount of servant washing is going to remove stains like a six-second cantrip would. Think of all those scenes in all those movies where a weddind or party was ruined by the woman getting wine spilled on her dress. Instead of outrage and needing to find a new dress, it takes a 6-second wave of her hand to fix. That is useful. That is something people would want to be able to do.

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

The point is there can be a lot of magic and magic items floating around without arcane magic being easy.

Plus those +1 swords and magic cloaks can be millennia old and change dozens of hands. Every castle and every dungeon having magic swords doesn't mean magic craft is simple.

Sure, but a magic steel sword can be a millennia old.

Bob the Court wizard isn't a millennia old. And if every city has at least a dozen wizards, then that means learning magic can't be that difficult.

Therefore you cannot use 5e very permissive rules to describe an assumption that includes 1e and 2e restrictions. Your weight to each edition has to be semi equal.

So... basically I have to be beholden to the assumptions made 50 years ago when explaining DnD worlds to people now?

If I wanted to talk about the assumptions of Country music, should I talk about the sound of blowing air through a moonshine jug, or should I talk about the songs that topped the records for the last five years?

Why am I limited by the assumptions made when the game first came out, instead of talking about the version of the game that exists now in the culture it exists in now. Should I limit any discussion on the assumptions of Science Fiction by stating that we can't stray too far from H.G. Wells?

The problem I see is, the baseline assumptions have shifted, but people are refusing to acknowledge that shift in their creation of worlds, settings, and even when discussing the rules. Which leads to dissonance.

And if you are a rich noble with servants who are forced to be loyal and need jobs, you can hire servants to do all of these for coppers and maintain a d8 HD and some proficiencies.

Ah yes, assassins and spies have never pretended to be loyal servants, or paid those servants who are making coppers and "forced to be loyal" large amounts of gold to betray me.

I can even expect them t throw themselves in front of arrows like ablative shielding when I'm at a social event without my steel armor and heavy shield.

In fact, I can rely on them to go into a room, spy on people, and report back exactly what was said and the facial expressions of the people who said it in real-time.

Of course just hiring commoners does every single thing magic can do. Except... not.

Mend my own suit like a commoner? Why is my formalwear getting so damages and why isn't my servants handling it?

Not to forget how much it cost it is to hire a magic tutor for a half decade.

See my response to Crimson.

Nice to know we've settled down to half a decade (5 years) for learning cantrips. Also, do you need a cantrip if your retired Grandfather or Grandmother can teach you?

Or heck, since magic is for commoners, why don't you just force a servant who has no choice but to be loyal to you to teach you for coppers. I mean, you are a noble with all that money and proficiencies and a d8 HD, clearly you can just force a mage to obey you.
 

Fine, if we are going to go this route

It is blatantly absurd to propose anyone can learn to wield a weapon proficiently

It is blatantly absurd (and actually by RAW false) to say that Wizards can't wear armor.

It is blatantly absurd to say that Wizards are have low health

It is blatantly absurd to say that Arcane magic and martial training are mutually exclusive.
Yes. Not everyone can learn to use weapons properly whilst some people can learn to do several things well. Not controversial.

Now that we've said everything is absurd, lets go back to thinking this through. Sorcerers you are right, would by default need to have a person born of the blood to use magic. That is definitionally what a sorcerer is. Arcane magic is not only wielded by sorcerers, and both Wizards and Bards are classes about being taught to use magic. Not born with it.

Therefore, saying that someone must be born with the ability to use magic means they are a sorcerer. A wizard is someone who was born without the ability to use magic, and had to learn how to use magic. That is the point of the class.

Can every single person learn every single subject with equal ease? No. But despite the fact that I suck with foreign languages, I could learn it. It would take longer and I would be bad at speaking the language, but I could learn. Saying that people can't learn magic unless they were born with the capability of learning magic goes against the theme of the class and the fantasy involved. You might as well say that every Wizard needs to make a deal with a devil to earn their magic.

And learning magic is probably far more difficult than learning a foreign language. And at some point something is so difficult for certain people that they cannot reasonably learn the thing in sensible amount of time, especially if they need to learn a bunch of other stuff like a noble would have to.

Sure, but you had to pay those servants, and you wouldn't let your local servant repair a 1,000 gp dress made by an esteemed dressmaker out of rare spider-silks.
I mean people did exactly that for thousands of years in the real life.

And no amount of servant washing is going to remove stains like a six-second cantrip would. Think of all those scenes in all those movies where a weddind or party was ruined by the woman getting wine spilled on her dress. Instead of outrage and needing to find a new dress, it takes a 6-second wave of her hand to fix. That is useful. That is something people would want to be able to do.
Then hire a wizard or have a spare dress. To me dedicating all your time to learning some magic tricks to handle menial household chores really doesn't seem like a sensible use of time for an aristocrat.

But nothing of this really is in the rules. No my setting assumptions nor yours. I already said that that if you want a setting where magic is super common and easy to learn you can do that. The rules will work just the same. But (yet again) you are unable to accept the subjectivity and have to try to argue that your position is somehow objectively correct interpretation of an elfgame fluff. I am not doing the same, my interpretation is merely one of the many possible logically coherent ones, albeit it is one that is very commonly used in many existing settings.
 


Aldarc

Legend
But nothing of this really is in the rules. No my setting assumptions nor yours. I already said that that if you want a setting where magic is super common and easy to learn you can do that. The rules will work just the same. But (yet again) you are unable to accept the subjectivity and have to try to argue that your position is somehow objectively correct interpretation of an elfgame fluff. I am not doing the same, my interpretation is merely one of the many possible logically coherent ones, albeit it is one that is very commonly used in many existing settings.
The issue is not necessarily about the ease of learning magic, but how nobles would have the greatest privilege to create/exploit a gap in capital (i.e., magic) between themselves and non-nobles over successive generations to effectively create a magocracy. If magic requires a "spark" then nobles are the most poised to capitalize on that spark. If magic requires appropriate education, then nobles are likewise more likely than commoners to capitalize on that. This is a point that often gets lost in a game drowning in farmboys or shepherds becoming wizards. Our modernist perspective tends to relegate nobility mostly to fancy titles rather than an actual class of people.

So what if wizards finish their education later? To join the Roman Republic Senate required that you be at least 32 years old, which is on the younger side of typical. So are magocracies of wizards not possible over successive generations of wizarding noble families? If magocracies are impractical, then how did Netheril, Thay, or Halruaa do it in Forgotten Realms? Or Aundair in Eberron? We inherited an aesthetic of nobles being separate from wizards and mages, typically relegated to supporting roles, but instead of questioning whether it makes sense, discussion mostly amounts to post hoc justifications for the status quo.
 

The issue is not necessarily about the ease of learning magic, but how nobles would have the greatest privilege to create/exploit a gap in capital (i.e., magic) between themselves and non-nobles over successive generations to effectively create a magocracy. If magic requires a "spark" then nobles are the most poised to capitalize on that spark. If magic requires appropriate education, then nobles are likewise more likely than commoners to capitalize on that. This is a point that often gets lost in a game drowning in farmboys or shepherds becoming wizards. Our modernist perspective tends to relegate nobility mostly to fancy titles rather than an actual class of people.
I think two things are conflated here: 'wizards are commonly from upper class background' and 'upper class people are commonly wizards.' The former seems rather logical, the latter is certainly possible, but far from automatic.

So what if wizards finish their education later? To join the Roman Republic Senate required that you be at least 32 years old, which is on the younger side of typical. So are magocracies of wizards not possible over successive generations of wizarding noble families? If magocracies are impractical, then how did Netheril, Thay, or Halruaa do it in Forgotten Realms? Or Aundair in Eberron? We inherited an aesthetic of nobles being separate from wizards and mages, typically relegated to supporting roles, but instead of questioning whether it makes sense, discussion mostly amounts to post hoc justifications for the status quo.
It is possible, it just isn't automatic.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I think two things are conflated here: 'wizards are commonly from upper class background' and 'upper class people are commonly wizards.' The former seems rather logical, the latter is certainly possible, but far from automatic.

It is possible, it just isn't automatic.
You are right that it's not automatic or guaranteed, but I have not so much been arguing that this should be automatic, but, rather, that this should be more frequent or common than what we typically see or find expressed in settings. If anything, the nobility in D&D have a relative dearth proportionately of mages. But D&D is an exceptionally modernist-oriented game that typically disengages or ignores the privileges of classism or magic as capital.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I always thought a large chunk of fighters, paladins, rangers, wizards, and artificers were noble third sons/daughters or later and bastards who got expensive training instead of inheritance or arranged marriage.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
Therefore, saying that someone must be born with the ability to use magic means they are a sorcerer. A wizard is someone who was born without the ability to use magic, and had to learn how to use magic. That is the point of the class.
Nah, not in all campaigns.

Some (mine) are more like;

Born with the ability and its so strong that you manifest it easily and almost spontaneously = sorcerer.
Born with the ability and the spark must be kindled and taught in order to be used effectively = wizard.
Not born with the ability. (PCs may "discover" they had the ability all along when they multi class or take some feat or ability)


This also explains why sorcerers and wizards use the same list (mostly).

You may argue, "But Chris, then the sorcerer should be able to learn spells eventually!!!!" And I would say sure....

Take a level of wizard.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top