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

Chaosmancer

Legend
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.

And maybe learning Sylvan is impossible, because humans can't speak the magical symbols needed to speak it.

We can say anything about learning this or that being so potentially difficult as to be impossible, but you can't base it on anything. And, if it were truly that difficult, more difficult than the most difficult subject matter ever taught by humans to humans in the real world.... then why are there likely 2,000 wizards in a given kingdom in DnD? (Based on a population of the entire kingdom being 400,000... which was the population of the city of ancient Rome, so I feel that is fairly astronomically low, and the accepted 3.5 rule of 0.5% of a population being wizards)

There are statistically a fair number of wizards, so that means we really can't expect that magic is truly this art that is nearly impossibly difficult to learn.

I mean people did exactly that for thousands of years in the real life.

Shock

You mean in the real world people had the option to use real magic to warp the very fabric of reality and we chose not to use it?

More seriously, do you think they trusted the illiterate commoner, or do you think they sent it back to the more expensive tailor to have him fix it? I'm betting it was the latter, don't you think?

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.

That is really missing the forest because of one very specific tree.

I used that cantrip as an easy example. How about these?

The ability to kill at a distance with no weapon.

The ability to never be disarmed.

The ability to have secret conversations with zero chance of eavesdroppers.

The ability to increase the damage of those martial weapons people love so much.

And these are just cantrips from the top of my head, the equivalent of learning to cook eggs before going to start making cakes and pastries. They would really be shooting for first level spells.

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.

I am not unable to accept the subjectivity of it, but my point that logically nobles would seek to learn magic was practically met with ridicule. It was treated like I was somehow altering the game and making wild claims. But, notice that the majority of this discussion has focused on the rules of 2e and 3.5, not 5e. Because when we move the discussion to 5e, suddenly we are told things change.

As in, the baseline assumption of the game might have changed. Things have shifted closer to the model I'm describing, but people are acting like I'm just rambling with no basis in anything. And if the game has shifted, sure, we can still play the old way, but we should ask, if it is the old way, what has changed?

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


If you are doing the assumptions of D&D, yes.

If you are making the assumptions of modern D&D, no.

It's that simple.

Why are the assumptions of Modern DnD not the assumptions of DnD? Is Modern DnD not DnD? If not, what is it?

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


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.

Sure, settings change everything. Settings can break all the rules.

But the rules set a pretty clear dichotomy by RAW.

Wizards are taught magic.
Sorcerers are born Magical.
Warlocks make deals to be given magic.

If you change it so that Wizards have to be born magical, then your setting happens. Sorcerers are just stronger wizards who never bothered to train, or Wizards are weak sorcerers who needed additional help to harness their talents. But you have broken down the divide presented in the book.

Just like if you made it that all Wizards had to make deals with demons, suddenly we are asking, why is the deal the wizard made to get his magic different than the Warlock's deal? You can do it, but you are certainly changing the assumptions of the game if you do.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We can say anything about learning this or that being so potentially difficult as to be impossible, but you can't base it on anything. And, if it were truly that difficult, more difficult than the most difficult subject matter ever taught by humans to humans in the real world.... then why are there likely 2,000 wizards in a given kingdom in DnD? (Based on a population of the entire kingdom being 400,000... which was the population of the city of ancient Rome, so I feel that is fairly astronomically low, and the accepted 3.5 rule of 0.5% of a population being wizards)

There are statistically a fair number of wizards, so that means we really can't expect that magic is truly this art that is nearly impossibly difficult to learn.
It can just be really difficult. Like high level physics, neurosurgery etc.

More seriously, do you think they trusted the illiterate commoner, or do you think they sent it back to the more expensive tailor to have him fix it? I'm betting it was the latter, don't you think?
Sure. And no magic was needed.

That is really missing the forest because of one very specific tree.

I used that cantrip as an easy example. How about these?

The ability to kill at a distance with no weapon.

The ability to never be disarmed.

The ability to have secret conversations with zero chance of eavesdroppers.

The ability to increase the damage of those martial weapons people love so much.

And these are just cantrips from the top of my head, the equivalent of learning to cook eggs before going to start making cakes and pastries. They would really be shooting for first level spells.

Sure some of those are marginally useful in very specific situations. However if you have servants and soldiers at your disposal hardy worth wasting your time on unless it comes really easily for you.


I am not unable to accept the subjectivity of it, but my point that logically nobles would seek to learn magic was practically met with ridicule. It was treated like I was somehow altering the game and making wild claims. But, notice that the majority of this discussion has focused on the rules of 2e and 3.5, not 5e. Because when we move the discussion to 5e, suddenly we are told things change.

As in, the baseline assumption of the game might have changed. Things have shifted closer to the model I'm describing, but people are acting like I'm just rambling with no basis in anything. And if the game has shifted, sure, we can still play the old way, but we should ask, if it is the old way, what has changed?

This is fluff, the settings remain mostly unchanged. 🤷‍♂️
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Why are the assumptions of Modern DnD not the assumptions of DnD? Is Modern DnD not DnD? If not, what is it?

Modern D&D is a subset of D&D. The assumptions of Modern D&D are not all the same as Old D&D. The baseline assumptions of D&D as the assumptions of Modern and Old D&D that don't conflict extremely outside of raw omission.

The baseline assumption is which ideas the majority of players and DMs would agree on. Some players have played and still play older editions.

A musician's or band's first albums is still a part of their being even if it is old and their newer stuff is different.
 

Arilyn

Hero
If nobles aren't going to learn magic, they are going to make sure they have spellcasters in their employ, just like nobility in real world had knights and guards. If spellcasters are rare, they'll scour the land to find one and lure him or her in with promises of "funding." I mean if your rival or enemy has magic, you'll want it too.

Most castles had their own church. In D&D, the nobity are also going to work real hard to make sure their cleric is casting divine magic.

On top of this, considering that D&D has a LOT of classes with magic, or sub classes with magic, I don't see how one can argue that magic is rare anyway. Classes, like the ranger, for example, often have spells in place of what could have been abilities. This to me feels very much like a world that has a largish population with magic at their fingertips. Yes, I know, player characters are exceptional, but if a D&D world has rare magic, there should only be one or two available spellcasting classes. Magic items should be extremely rare finds, and even potions would be a wonder. This is not typical D&D.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
It can just be really difficult. Like high level physics, neurosurgery etc.

Right. Do you know how long it takes to become a fully-certified neurosurgeon?

12 years, max.

4 years of medical school.
1 year internship
5 to 7 years of being in a residency program.

After that you would be a fully qualified neurosurgeon.

To be a fully qualified wizard in 5e means to be level 3 (before that you are really an apprentice). In 3.5 it meant to be level 1.

But you guys are proposing that reaching level 3 would take 30 years That is 2.5 times longer, but considering education isn't linear, you may consider it something like proposing it is 150 times harder (log scale).

So, either it is many times harder than becoming a neurosurgeon, or a wizard's training should only last about a decade.



Sure. And no magic was needed.

Yes, and you don't need a car to get to work, you can make it by walking or riding a horse.

You keep approaching this by saying how nobles were in reality. Reality does not have magic spells that accomplish these tasks. The very fact that magic is possible changes everything.

Sure some of those are marginally useful in very specific situations. However if you have servants and soldiers at your disposal hardy worth wasting your time on unless it comes really easily for you.

You know, how many rich people today have guards instead of an electronic alarm system to protect their house?

I mean, they are rich, they could afford 24/7 protection. Think Bill Gates has guards posted outside his house every night to protect it?

Also, I love how the combat ability to never be disarmed or to make your weapons stronger is "marginally useful in very specific circumstances" but all nobles have to be educated in arms and armor. Which... you know, is also only useful in a fight, can be disarmed and doesn't do you any good if you don't have armor and weapons on you. Almost like it is... what is that word, a specific circumstance.

And, again, how many people keep a gun for home defense instead of a shield and sword? Or a club even.

And, a Noble could very easily be disarmed of serious weaponry (likely to keep his dagger for eating and defense) but are you going to have him remove his jewelry? A single piece with a crystal and you have an arcane focus.

This is fluff, the settings remain mostly unchanged. 🤷‍♂️

Everything we are talking about is "fluff" and the settings were written for older editions. You are basically arguing "The things written before 5e are still the same, so 5e couldn't have changed the assumptions of magic, because the 3.5 lore wasn't magically changed when 5e was released."

Obviously you need to rewrite the setting for it to actually change. But 5e has changed the assumptions that went into these settings. I don't even need to convince you of that, because Minigiant has said that I need to stop using "5e's more permissive assumptions" meaning that he at least acknowledges this, and since you haven't disagreed that 5e assumptions are different than 3.5 assumptions, I can place you in the same category until otherwise corrected.

So, the game changed, and the settings didn't follow... except, look at some of the settings that are released.

FR is still the same.
Eberron is Broad Magic.
Ravnica is incredibly magical with everyone casting spells
Wildemount has a lot of spellcasters.

That is the majority of the settings published for 5e... and they seem to support my point.

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

Modern D&D is a subset of D&D. The assumptions of Modern D&D are not all the same as Old D&D. The baseline assumptions of D&D as the assumptions of Modern and Old D&D that don't conflict extremely outside of raw omission.

The baseline assumption is which ideas the majority of players and DMs would agree on. Some players have played and still play older editions.

A musician's or band's first albums is still a part of their being even if it is old and their newer stuff is different.

Well, I have to say you are dead wrong.

2e heavily conflicts with the assumptions of 5e.

Yes, Old DnD has these assumptions, but Old DnD is a subset of DnD, and if someone went into a 5e game expecting a 2e experience they would be sorely disappointed.

I mean, just off the top of my head with things specifically about magic that aren't true any more.

Arcane Spell Failure in armor (all armor)
Vancian Casting
No At-will magic
Stacking multiple buff spells
All spells increasing in power with character level, not which slot you use.
Magic School Specialization
The differences in Spell Resistance
Your Familiar dying costing XP
Metamagic feats

That is just off the top of my head, and those have some big implications for magic in the setting and the game.

And DnD doesn't need to live with those assumptions, those are old assumptions. We need to pay more attention to the new assumptions, unless we are playing the older version of the game.

Which most of us aren't.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Arcane Spell Failure in armor (all armor)
Vancian Casting
No At-will magic
Stacking multiple buff spells
All spells increasing in power with character level, not which slot you use.
Magic School Specialization
The differences in Spell Resistance
Your Familiar dying costing XP
Metamagic feats

None of those are baseline assumptions in D&D either.

It's not favoritism to the old or the new.

The bsseline assumption of D&D is what the majority of D&D edition shares. When we get to 8e, more editions will have wizards with at will cantrips and no ACF and then at-will cantrips and no ACF will be baseline. Right now the baseline is that low level wizards gas out fast, don't wear armor, and wield few weapons because more editions display that.

Get it.
 

Right. Do you know how long it takes to become a fully-certified neurosurgeon?

12 years, max.

4 years of medical school.
1 year internship
5 to 7 years of being in a residency program.

After that you would be a fully qualified neurosurgeon.

To be a fully qualified wizard in 5e means to be level 3 (before that you are really an apprentice). In 3.5 it meant to be level 1.

But you guys are proposing that reaching level 3 would take 30 years That is 2.5 times longer, but considering education isn't linear, you may consider it something like proposing it is 150 times harder (log scale).

So, either it is many times harder than becoming a neurosurgeon, or a wizard's training should only last about a decade.
The thing you're not getting is that it is not just the decade. You can't just put any random person to a school and have them master a highly specialised field like neurosurgery or quantum physics. The people who are selected for such training are already gifted people who have an aptitude for the field.

Yes, and you don't need a car to get to work, you can make it by walking or riding a horse.

You keep approaching this by saying how nobles were in reality. Reality does not have magic spells that accomplish these tasks. The very fact that magic is possible changes everything.
Not really. The thing about the aristocracy is that they're in charge. It is not really about what they can personally do, it is about controlling the resources.

You know, how many rich people today have guards instead of an electronic alarm system to protect their house?
How many of those rich people spend decade in learning to become a an electric engineer so that they could build that alarm system themselves instead of just hiring someone to do it for them?

I mean, they are rich, they could afford 24/7 protection. Think Bill Gates has guards posted outside his house every night to protect it?

Also, I love how the combat ability to never be disarmed or to make your weapons stronger is "marginally useful in very specific circumstances" but all nobles have to be educated in arms and armor. Which... you know, is also only useful in a fight, can be disarmed and doesn't do you any good if you don't have armor and weapons on you. Almost like it is... what is that word, a specific circumstance.
No, not all nobles need to learn to fight either.

And, again, how many people keep a gun for home defense instead of a shield and sword? Or a club even.

And, a Noble could very easily be disarmed of serious weaponry (likely to keep his dagger for eating and defense) but are you going to have him remove his jewelry? A single piece with a crystal and you have an arcane focus.
In a world where wizardry was as easy to learn as you suggest, people would absolutely confiscate arcane foci just like they would any other weapons all sort of countermeasures against magic would be very common.

Everything we are talking about is "fluff" and the settings were written for older editions. You are basically arguing "The things written before 5e are still the same, so 5e couldn't have changed the assumptions of magic, because the 3.5 lore wasn't magically changed when 5e was released."

Obviously you need to rewrite the setting for it to actually change. But 5e has changed the assumptions that went into these settings. I don't even need to convince you of that, because Minigiant has said that I need to stop using "5e's more permissive assumptions" meaning that he at least acknowledges this, and since you haven't disagreed that 5e assumptions are different than 3.5 assumptions, I can place you in the same category until otherwise corrected.

So, the game changed, and the settings didn't follow... except, look at some of the settings that are released.

FR is still the same.
Eberron is Broad Magic.
Ravnica is incredibly magical with everyone casting spells
Wildemount has a lot of spellcasters.
I don't think that either in Wildemount or Eberron nobles are commonly wizards. I don't know about Ravnica. In any case, I have already said one can build the setting fluff to support any position on this, but it really has nothing to do with the rules. You can have rare-wizard or common-wizard setting using any edition of the game.
 
Last edited:

Aldarc

Legend
Not really. The thing about the aristocracy is that they're in charge. It is not really about whart they can personally do, it is about controlling the resources.
But again, as you said earlier, if magic requires a "spark," then the aristocracy could very well be defined in fantasy settings based upon what they can do in addition to their resources. For example, in Eberron the Dragonmarked Houses are effectively magical merchant-aristocracies with tremendous resources at their disposal. Dragonmarks only show up, with rare exception, among those within that family. Those in that family who manifest a dragonmark are bestowed an ipso facto noble title.

We also see this in Dragon Age in the Tevinter Imperium, where mages assumed control of the government and formed noble families. Magically-gifted child born to a non-magical family can elevate that family temporarily to the aristocracy and possibly longer. They do not have as high of a class as mage noble families descended from the "Dreamers."
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I think it's less about "having a spark" and more about "rolling a high Intelligence score".

What separates PCs and common NPCs in most editions is that PCs have the benefit of rolled stats before race bonus/penalties whereas NPCs usually use a mediocre ability score array and layer racial bonuses/penalties on top of that. Only elite, special, and PC NPCs get to use the better arrays, rolls, or point buy.

So like everyone else, nobles would only pursue classes and occupations they could even manage with their stats. Fighter and Warrior would be a favorite as it is largely equipment based and functions with multiple ability scores. And if you go by the premise that you can tweak a few stats by training in adolescence, a noble bumping their Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution, (or Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma in 4e or 5e) from 11 to 13 is good enough for an NPC.

This all means a noble social class would have to work hard and together to produce a near entire magical aristocracy. All the nobles would have to seduce sexy dragons or make pacts with archfey and demons or guzzle alchemical potions to boost the smarts of offspring.
 

Aldarc

Legend
What classes, occupations, and paths would you expect from the following array of attributes?

Strength 11 (+0)
Dexterity 12 (+1)
Constitution 11 (+0)
Intelligence 12 (+1)
Wisdom 14 (+2)
Charisma 16 (+3)
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top