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
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.
That's like your opinion, man.
Plenty of settings use the premise that the heroes and villians are all rare special people.

D&D was built on the premise that adventurers outside of fighters and rogue are super rare special snowflakes who do strange quests and dungeon delve when they lacka quest. 3e added fighters and rogues to the special rare types. This is why D&D settings are usually in Medieval Era Stasis. The commonfolk are just holding on and there aren't enough special folk to psh the world forward with any speed.

Know if you say the baseline doesn't make sense for specific setting like FR, I could get with. But for some others, it makes total sense.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


wtf is this non-sequitur
A reference to the claims that nobles would force their children learn difficult subject matters because it would be too embarrassing to admit that their offspring were not gifted enough to learn those things.

idk about you but for me the line of logic @Chaosmancer is using has been pretty easy to follow from the beginning
Good for you. Personally I find the idea that because a player can easily choose a capability for their character it must meant that this capability is also easily acquirable by anyone in the setting to be blatantly absurd.
 

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.

Times change, but let me ask you this.

How many children of very wealthy parents go to public school? How many of them take classes in either dance, violin or piano? How many get into programs like MENSA?

If the nobles say "send your most gifted students to our facility" then that becomes a mark of prestige, and every noble family is going to attempt to send at least one child to that facility.


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.

Except that I am basing it in things, and it is not nonsensical.

Let us look at the Arcane Trickster. They learn magic at 3rd level. They get two first level slots and three cantrips, the same as a first level wizard. They know three spells, which is half of a first level wizard.

Now, it has been proposed that the Wizard took a decade or more of rigorous study to the detriment of their health and lack of any other possible education to learn their six spells and three cantrips. What does the fluff of the Arcane Trickster Tell us?

"Some rogues enhance their fine-honed skills of stealth and agility with magic, learning tricks of enchantment and illusion. These rogues include pickpockets and burglars, but also pranksters, mischief-makers, and a significant number of adventurers"

So, what can we parse from this?

Well, a pickpocket, a low-end thief whose skill set is often depicted by urchin children can learn magic with no problem to their other skills. In fact, it specifically says that the person could learn these skills entirely for pulling pranks. This is presented as an entirely non-impressive choice. "Oh, you learned a little magic" And since it is a 3rd level rouge, we know that learning this much magic was possible without limiting them in a significant way.


How about the Eldritch Knight?

I'm not going to repost the entire thing because it is a bit longer, but they talk about choosing to study magic, committing spells to memory and choosing to focus on the schools of magic that support them. And the same language is shows up for the Arcane Archer. For the Rune Knight. For the Echo Knight. For the Phantom Rogue.


And then there are the feats, and they have no prerequisites. Additionally, variant human allows you to take a feat at character creation. So, it would not be unusual to see humans running around with magic.



Now, yes, any player can pick any option. Anyone can be born with divine blood in their veins. But, there is a difference here.

The fantasy of anyone being able to be born with divine blood, is true because anyone could, but those powers only exist to those people who are born that way.

Anyone can make a deal and be a warlock, but those powers are limited only to people who make those deals.

What is the Wizards? Anyone can study magic. You don't need to be born special. You don't need to sell your soul. You don't need to be blessed and chosen by nature or the Divine. You need to study.

And unlike being chosen or born special, it really is true that anyone can study. And the 1/3 caster fighters and rogues show us that some people even mix their study of the arcane with other pursuits.


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.

But the players understand it. The players don't find it mysterious or poorly understood. And, frankly, what you are describing can apply to technology as well. There were a lot of people who though Covid was caused by 5g technology, because it is mysterious and poorly understood. Most people couldn't tell you how a phone really works.

It is still technology, just not technology understood by the common man.

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

That's like your opinion, man.
Plenty of settings use the premise that the heroes and villians are all rare special people.

D&D was built on the premise that adventurers outside of fighters and rogue are super rare special snowflakes who do strange quests and dungeon delve when they lacka quest. 3e added fighters and rogues to the special rare types. This is why D&D settings are usually in Medieval Era Stasis. The commonfolk are just holding on and there aren't enough special folk to psh the world forward with any speed.

Know if you say the baseline doesn't make sense for specific setting like FR, I could get with. But for some others, it makes total sense.


Like which setting?

Greyhawk had a magical empire, and has tons of spellcasters.
FR has it
Eberron is wide magic
Darksun doesn't have a ton of spellcasters, but that is because they changed magic.
Ravnica has a metric ton of spellcasters
Wildemount has multiple arcane academies and tons of spellcasters

Which setting are you aware of where Spellcasters are "super rare special snowflakes"?
 

wtf is this non-sequitur

idk about you but for me the line of logic @Chaosmancer is using has been pretty easy to follow from the beginning
I think that we're understanding their reasoning. We just don't agree with their assertion that NPCs use the same rules and systems as PCs do.
If you start with the assumption that anyone can learn wizardry, Chaosmancer's conclusion is perfectly logical.
 

Times change, but let me ask you this.

How many children of very wealthy parents go to public school? How many of them take classes in either dance, violin or piano? How many get into programs like MENSA?

If the nobles say "send your most gifted students to our facility" then that becomes a mark of prestige, and every noble family is going to attempt to send at least one child to that facility.
It is not 'most gifted' it is 'gifted in that specific thing.' One can be gifted in many different ways, and being gifted in magic is just one thing among many. And no one is questioning that the nobles would have access to good education, but having good education is not the source of their prestige.

Except that I am basing it in things, and it is not nonsensical.

Let us look at the Arcane Trickster. They learn magic at 3rd level. They get two first level slots and three cantrips, the same as a first level wizard. They know three spells, which is half of a first level wizard.

Now, it has been proposed that the Wizard took a decade or more of rigorous study to the detriment of their health and lack of any other possible education to learn their six spells and three cantrips. What does the fluff of the Arcane Trickster Tell us?

"Some rogues enhance their fine-honed skills of stealth and agility with magic, learning tricks of enchantment and illusion. These rogues include pickpockets and burglars, but also pranksters, mischief-makers, and a significant number of adventurers"

So, what can we parse from this?

Well, a pickpocket, a low-end thief whose skill set is often depicted by urchin children can learn magic with no problem to their other skills. In fact, it specifically says that the person could learn these skills entirely for pulling pranks. This is presented as an entirely non-impressive choice. "Oh, you learned a little magic" And since it is a 3rd level rouge, we know that learning this much magic was possible without limiting them in a significant way.


How about the Eldritch Knight?

I'm not going to repost the entire thing because it is a bit longer, but they talk about choosing to study magic, committing spells to memory and choosing to focus on the schools of magic that support them. And the same language is shows up for the Arcane Archer. For the Rune Knight. For the Echo Knight. For the Phantom Rogue.
First of third level character is already far more experienced person that vast majority of the population. And secondly that the rules for people who can do this sort of magic exist doesn't tell us anything about how common they are. Arcane trickster is obviously an archetype to allow you to play a character like Grey Mouser, and in Nehwon magic was pretty rare and poorly understood.

And then there are the feats, and they have no prerequisites. Additionally, variant human allows you to take a feat at character creation. So, it would not be unusual to see humans running around with magic.
JFC! Again, that a player can choose to do this doesn't tell you anything about how common this is in the setting! If a Star Wars RPG has a jedi as one of it's five character classes you'd probably claim that one fifth of the people in the setting must be jedis!


Now, yes, any player can pick any option. Anyone can be born with divine blood in their veins. But, there is a difference here.

The fantasy of anyone being able to be born with divine blood, is true because anyone could, but those powers only exist to those people who are born that way.

Anyone can make a deal and be a warlock, but those powers are limited only to people who make those deals.

What is the Wizards? Anyone can study magic. You don't need to be born special. You don't need to sell your soul. You don't need to be blessed and chosen by nature or the Divine. You need to study.

And unlike being chosen or born special, it really is true that anyone can study. And the 1/3 caster fighters and rogues show us that some people even mix their study of the arcane with other pursuits.

That anyone can study doesn't automatically mean that anyone can learn. Stop repeating this obvious fallacy.

But the players understand it. The players don't find it mysterious or poorly understood.
But the characters might. It's called roleplaying.
 

Times change, but let me ask you this.

How many children of very wealthy parents go to public school? How many of them take classes in either dance, violin or piano? How many get into programs like MENSA?

If the nobles say "send your most gifted students to our facility" then that becomes a mark of prestige, and every noble family is going to attempt to send at least one child to that facility.

The question is if the "Magical School for Gifted Wizards" exists in that world.
Now are magical schools in the baseline assumption of D&D.

Greyhawk had a magical empire, and has tons of spellcasters.
FR has it
Eberron is wide magic
Darksun doesn't have a ton of spellcasters, but that is because they changed magic.
Ravnica has a metric ton of spellcasters
Wildemount has multiple arcane academies and tons of spellcasters

Which setting are you aware of where Spellcasters are "super rare special snowflakes"?

Greyhawk had a magical empire. Past tense if you mean the Suel.
FR is weird as I stated. It's a kitchen sink with everything WOTC and TSR sells. And even there the Netherese fell. Thay and Luskan are evil.
Ravinca comes from a MTG baseline. Magic in MTG settings is easy.
Wildemont is basically FR.
Mystara has 2 magocrocies but they are both too tiny and weird for any noble to send their children too.

And that's it really.
None of the other settings really do nations run by mages that aren't evil, elven, or destroyed.
 

I think that we're understanding their reasoning. We just don't agree with their assertion that NPCs use the same rules and systems as PCs do.
If you start with the assumption that anyone can learn wizardry, Chaosmancer's conclusion is perfectly logical.

Which is fair, except it leaves me with a problem, what rules should I use then?

Your wizard was the apprentice to an NPC wizard? How did that happen?
You are an eldritch knight who studied how to mix steel and spell? Cool, so how did that happen? Were you studying under an NPC or from ancient texts of someone else doing that same thing?

Even the 0.5% rule we got from the 3.5 DMG that Minigiant accepted, that was a purely NPC rule, which led to hundreds of wizards. How am I supposed to frame that many magic users?


I know a lot of these questions don't have good answers, but I'm using the only tools I have to work with to try and see what assumptions the game is making about the game world.

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

It is not 'most gifted' it is 'gifted in that specific thing.' One can be gifted in many different ways, and being gifted in magic is just one thing among many. And no one is questioning that the nobles would have access to good education, but having good education is not the source of their prestige.

So, you are just clinging to an assertion with no basis in anything. That you must be born with some special something to learn magic.

It isn't like math
It isn't like science
It isn't like music
It isn't like art

You can't be taught magic unless you are born with the ability to understand magic.

First of third level character is already far more experienced person that vast majority of the population. And secondly that the rules for people who can do this sort of magic exist doesn't tell us anything about how common they are. Arcane trickster is obviously an archetype to allow you to play a character like Grey Mouser, and in Nehwon magic was pretty rare and poorly understood.

1) Would you like to provide some basis for a third level character being vastly more experienced than the population?The DMG says that they would still be local heroes by this stage, with "fledgling abilities". In fact, at the next tier (5 through 10) it says you have "mastered the basics of their class features" and since I remember talk that levels 1 and 2 are essentially apprentice levels. It takes until level 11 for the DMG to say that you are "true paragons of the world, set well apart from the masses)

2) The text did tell us. You aren't a genius master thief who cracked the arcane secrets of the universe, you are a pickpocket who decided to enhance your trade with magic. That tells us that what you did by 3rd level is not that special.

JFC! Again, that a player can choose to do this doesn't tell you anything about how common this is in the setting! If a Star Wars RPG has a jedi as one of it's five character classes you'd probably claim that one fifth of the people in the setting must be jedis!.

And you seem to be arguing that the existence of rules for a Jedi doesn't imply that you aren't the only unique Jedi in existence.

Clearly the answer lies somewhere between those numbers number, but let us look at what else we know of Jedi.

They had to be born Jedi (which makes them completely different wizards already)
They had to be trained
There were enough of them to have a galaxy spanning order that held high esteem in politics and led armies across the entire galaxy...

Huh. I wonder how that happened. I mean, if they had to be born, and trained, and they had to be trained from a very young age til their adulthood, how did they also become so deeply embedded into politics and the government of the galaxy that they would be the first choice for diplomatic missions and be called upon to be the generals in the Republics war?

It is almost like... having powers no one else had made them important enough to become a political entity. Wonder if anyone could have been taught how to be a Jedi instead of needing to be born to it if more political people would have sent their kids to the Jedi Academy to be part of that political structure?



That anyone can study doesn't automatically mean that anyone can learn. Stop repeating this obvious fallacy.

It is not a fallacy.

If I spent a decade studying law, I would learn law.
If I spent a decade studying medicine, I would learn medicine.
If I spent a decade studying music, I would learn music.
If I spent a decade studying coding, I would learn coding.

Tabula Rasa. The Blank Slate.

People are not born with their skills. They must learn them. Yes, some people find learning certain things easier than others. But that does not make people who struggle to learn those skills incapable of learning those skills. People are not nearly as limited in ability as you seem to think they are.

But the characters might. It's called roleplaying.

No, the characters wouldn't.

If I am poisoned, and the cleric knows lesser restoration, there is no mystery or doubt to the fact that they can cure me. There is no "but only if the god's will it" because it will succeed. Every time. No exceptions.

There is no spell failure chance for a cleric calling a divine miracle to heal the sick. You can play it up like there is, but there simply is nothing mysterious.

How many times can they cast it? They know that answer. It is constant. You don't wake up some mornings with fewer spell slots than normal, or more than normal, unless you have leveled up. A 3rd level cleric always has the same number of slots, four 1st, two 2nd.

And yes, I know, "just because the game rules are written that way for ease of play doesn't mean it is real and true in the world" But, again, if I can't use the rules of the game to interact with the game world, then how can we talk about any base assumptions of the game world?

I could say that divine magic is mysterious and that trying to cure a person of poison could just as easily open a portal to hell and cause my soul to be dragged in chains to eternal torment. There is no way for that to happen, the rules don't allow it to happen, and there is no indication of how that could possibly happen though. So... if it can't happen, why would I think it is a possibility that it might happen?

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

The question is if the "Magical School for Gifted Wizards" exists in that world.
Now are magical schools in the baseline assumption of D&D.

They seem to be PHB description of a wizard says "The closest a wizard is likely to come to an ordinary life is working as a sage or lecturer in a library or university, teaching others the secrets of the multiverse. Other wizards sell their services as diviners, serve in military forces, or pursue lives of crime and domination."

So, your normal life for a wizard involves teaching at a library or university. That is a school teaching magic by definition.

Greyhawk had a magical empire. Past tense if you mean the Suel.
FR is weird as I stated. It's a kitchen sink with everything WOTC and TSR sells. And even there the Netherese fell. Thay and Luskan are evil.
Ravinca comes from a MTG baseline. Magic in MTG settings is easy.
Wildemont is basically FR.
Mystara has 2 magocrocies but they are both too tiny and weird for any noble to send their children too.

And that's it really.
None of the other settings really do nations run by mages that aren't evil, elven, or destroyed.

FR
And the War Wizards of Cormyr aren't evil, and let us see, just how many Wizard Guilds are there.

War Wizards of Cormyr
Red Wizards of Thay
Arcane Brotherhood of Luskan
Black Cloaks
Brotherhood of the Black Hand
Brotherhood of the Cloak
Circle of Reilloch Domayr
Guild Arcane of Calimshan
High House of Magic of Ravens Bluff
Inverted Tower
Mages of Saruun
Nimbral Lords
Order of the Many-Starred Cloak of Neverwinter
Seven of Waterdeep
Sorceller's Encapsulate of the town of Daggerford
Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors of Waterdeep
Wondermen


That is 17 major organizations. And a good half of them aren't evil. And some of them are in very small places. There are also according to the FR wiki 1,592 wizards of major note within the setting.

So, FR and Wildemount are about the same, and that gives us two settings with a lot of organized wizard's guilds that aren't evil.

What about Greyhawk?


Welp, very first thing that came up was the Council of Wizards who supported the North Kingdom. "The single largest group of independent Aerdy mages outside of the cities of Rel Deven" with 60 members. The city of Rel Deven has the Eldritch lords who "acted as sages and tutors to the noble houses of the Great Kingdom" much like the Silent Ones of Keoland.

So... I've just started looking and I've found three different orders of wizards working for three different governments, none of them mentioning this Suel place.

Ah, and here is someone posting a list gathered on canonfire.com, from oerthjournal #3

Guild of Wizardy of Greyhawk
Sagacious Society of Nyrond
Sorcerous Nexus of Rel Astra
Zashassar of Ekbir
United Artificers of Irongate
Society of Magi of Greyhawk
Council of Wizards of Winetha
Silent Ones of Keoland
Conclave Arcanum of Dyvers
Sign of the Red Talisman of Zeif
Eldritch Lords of Rel Deven
Sorcerous Union of Radigast City
Society of Enlightened Mages of Veluna City
Silver Consortium of Verbobonc
National Academy of Wizardy of Niole Dra
Sea Mages of Gradsul
Illuminated Ones of Exag
Scholars of the Arcane of Rel Astra
Warlocks of Molag
Order of the Inner Flame of Sefmur
Keepers of the Flan of Nevond Nevnend
Wizardholme of Urnst
Wizards of the Coast of Monmurg
Wrinkle Academy in Verbobonc

That is another 24 wizard's organizations. I also don't see any mention of Iuz Empire in that list, so probably at least one more there, unless I'm missing it

Seems just as magical as FR with wizard's deeply involved in the workings of various kingdoms. That brings us to 3 settings. Well, Four, because Ravnica and I can count eberron, so if I have 5/6 already... seems like that is the baseline.


Now, few of these are countries ruled by wizards, I'll grant that. But it is showing that every setting seems to have multiple organizations of wizards that are politically active and helping to shape their kingdoms. And so... why can't they be nobles? With the sheer number of Wizard guilds I've put out on the table, many of whom are working directly for the governments of their respective kingdoms, what basis do we have for saying that wizards can't be political entities? Can't be nobility?



And really, it comes down to the thing you said. Players go forth with the idea that society is run by non-magical people. There is no greater reason to it, it doesn't make sense within the logical context of the setting. We just don't assume people use magic. Despite the, clearly making use of magic.
 

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.
Most of my work is as a private tutor, so this is almost exactly what I do most of the time (apart from I do an hour rather than 45 minutes). And so you actually get to see what is going on inside the student's head. Most people (and, to a degree, animals) have an instinctive ability to do some maths. Most human brains can create a mental image of "three things" "four things" and put them together to make "seven things". This works even if they have no name for "3", "4", "+" and "7". But for some people (it's rare, but I have seen it at least twice) their brain simply does not have that in it's firmware. "Seven" is just a word that has no meaning. This is known as dyscalculia, although slapping a label on something doesn't really help. There are a couple of work-arounds you can teach to help such people cope, but there are some things they will never be able to do. It's like explaining "green" to someone born blind.

The idea that you can teach anything to anyone given sufficient time is philosophical bollocks that bares no relationship to the real world. People are different, they have different capabilities and aptitudes. Teaching is much more effective if you accept that, rather than treat children like cans of beans off a production line.
 

Which is fair, except it leaves me with a problem, what rules should I use then?
OK. Lets be really clear about this:
There are no rules about NPCs' ability to learn wizardry.

Your wizard might have attended a local school where everyone picked up a few wizard levels, or they might have learned under the only other wizard in the kingdom. They might even be the only wizard in existence in their generation and learned from their own studies or from theoretical arcana that no one else had been able to put into practice.

How NPCs become wizards is entirely a world-building decision based on the world that you want to build. There are no rules governing it any more than there are rules governing the amount of rivers in a particular kingdom.

No, the characters wouldn't.

If I am poisoned, and the cleric knows lesser restoration, there is no mystery or doubt to the fact that they can cure me. There is no "but only if the god's will it" because it will succeed. Every time. No exceptions.

There is no spell failure chance for a cleric calling a divine miracle to heal the sick. You can play it up like there is, but there simply is nothing mysterious.

How many times can they cast it? They know that answer. It is constant. You don't wake up some mornings with fewer spell slots than normal, or more than normal, unless you have leveled up. A 3rd level cleric always has the same number of slots, four 1st, two 2nd.

And yes, I know, "just because the game rules are written that way for ease of play doesn't mean it is real and true in the world" But, again, if I can't use the rules of the game to interact with the game world, then how can we talk about any base assumptions of the game world?

I could say that divine magic is mysterious and that trying to cure a person of poison could just as easily open a portal to hell and cause my soul to be dragged in chains to eternal torment. There is no way for that to happen, the rules don't allow it to happen, and there is no indication of how that could possibly happen though. So... if it can't happen, why would I think it is a possibility that it might happen?
The Player Characters use those rules because having control over their own abilities is generally good for player fun. Eberron for example specifically calls out that divine power might be granted to an NPC for just a single task or event. The majority of the spellcasters in the world don't use a PC class.

I don't know enough about other settings, but in Eberron these things are set up as part of the worldbuilding for specific game-supporting reasons.
Does it break the rules?
No. Because there are no rules.
The fact that (low-level) magic is very common while Wizards are very, very rare in Eberron is purely a world-building decision under the DM's call. The only point the rules start being relevant is after the DM decides that an NPC is a Wizard, at which point they can start following the rules for wizards.

Seems just as magical as FR with wizard's deeply involved in the workings of various kingdoms. That brings us to 3 settings. Well, Four, because Ravnica and I can count eberron, so if I have 5/6 already... seems like that is the baseline.
Eberron has maybe 7 "Wizard guilds" specifically called out, but it is assumed there there would be several more (every nation would have at least one, although not all have been detailed.
The majority of teachers and pupils at them are not Wizards as per the PC (or equivalent NPC) class rules.

Now, few of these are countries ruled by wizards, I'll grant that. But it is showing that every setting seems to have multiple organizations of wizards that are politically active and helping to shape their kingdoms. And so... why can't they be nobles? With the sheer number of Wizard guilds I've put out on the table, many of whom are working directly for the governments of their respective kingdoms, what basis do we have for saying that wizards can't be political entities? Can't be nobility?
Aundair has a 'tradition' of its nobles knowing a bit of magic. It is even called out that several families are bound by arcane pacts.
This is more a manner of social prestige rather than temporal power however. Like being proficient in persuasion and history.
If you want magic used on your behalf, you pay a professional.

The Dragonmarked Houses could be regarded as a nobility of sorts, although their remit is fairly restricted. It is specifically called out that most of the power of the houses comes from the interaction of their marks with items and mundane skills rather than their ability to cast spells.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top