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
Which is fair, except it leaves me with a problem, what rules should I use then?
This is not a question related to the rules!

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)
Local heroes! Overwhelming majority of the population is level one or not even that and do not have PC classes.

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.
And perhaps that is something every thief in the setting does. Or perhaps your character is the only one. Either works depending on the setting.

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.
It definitely deosn't imply that. There are periods in the SW universe where the PC jedi would have to be the only active jedi in the setting.

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.
Any person without some severe learning disability would learn at least some basics of those things, yes. And that works if you assume spellcasting to be a thing of similar scope and depth than the things you mention. But I don't. A person not gifted in magic would learn some magic theory or perhaps learn to meditate or some other initial steps like that depending on the magic paradigm. But they wouldn't necessarily learn to cast actual spells. That to me is a higher level of competence, comparable to being a successful specialist on the field.

And as you love to bring rules into this, I'd like to point out that all the things you mention would simple skill or tool proficiencies in D&D, whereas the lowest level of magic competency, the magic initiate, requires a feat, which is worth three skills. More potent spellcasting requires committing a full class or a subclass to it.

And whilst we are talking about rules, does the noble NPC in MM has spellcasting? It does not. Certainly this represent 'a typical noble' thus we can conclude that a typical noble is not a spellcaster.


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.
Mysteriousness is far more than whether it will work or not. And of course whilst the cleric might have pretty good idea what is the scope of the aid they may expect from their deity, this doesn't mean the other characters have such understanding. But ultimately this is more about attitudes and how you describe things. Players are fully capable of pretending that their characters are perplexed and horrified by an unknown tentacle faced creature whilst the players fully well know the stats of the mind flayers. The same thing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
It definitely deosn't imply that. There are periods in the SW universe where the PC jedi would have to be the only active jedi in the setting.
Longinus is correct that there are periods in Star Wars where there may only be a handful of "active" Jedi in the setting; however, the same is not necessarily true when it comes to "force-users" because being a Jedi is a political-religious affiliation: i.e., a member of the Jedi Order. There are numerous force-users in the setting that are not technically Jedi. And this is one way that both EU/Legends and Canon Star Wars lore gets around the rarity of "Jedi" during the Imperial Era bit. Ahsoka Tano, for example, was trained by the Jedi, but she leaves the Jedi Order and no longer considers herself Jedi though she is light/balance-side aligned. There are also a number of societies in Legends/Canon without Jedi but are/were effectively ruled by a class of force-users: e.g., Voss, Sith Empire, Dathomir Witches, etc.
 

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.
Way to move goalposts.

We were talking about wizard governments not wizard organizations.
We were talking about a nation where most of the nobles become arcane spellcasters.

I already said FR is weird. It has way more NPCs with PC classes and PCs running around in it and Wildemont is a practically the same thing with the names changed and everything shuffled around. The MTG settings can't be used either because they are built off a different baseline. It's like saying LOTR or Westeros are the baseline and therefore there are less than 5 spellcasters on a whole continent.

Again, the baseline assumption of a D&D is a late Medieval era feudal world with roaming armies and monsters in anyplace not right next to a town. Metropolises are rare. One noble house per town. A few noble families in a large city. Travel without escorts or constant patrols are extremely dangerous. Special services are far and fewer between.

Most wizards of power able to force themselves could do so. However nobles in D&D already have power. They collect taxes and manage the armies that keeps the villages, towns, and cities standing. There would be little reason for a noble to risk themselves traveling to find a wizard tutor or going on adventures just to retire back as landowning nobles. Most of the effects of low level magic can be purchased already from wealth. And getting to mid levels outside of magocracy takes decades of study or years of danger adventuring.
 


Most wizards of power able to force themselves could do so. However nobles in D&D already have power. They collect taxes and manage the armies that keeps the villages, towns, and cities standing. There would be little reason for a noble to risk themselves traveling to find a wizard tutor or going on adventures just to retire back as landowning nobles. Most of the effects of low level magic can be purchased already from wealth. And getting to mid levels outside of magocracy takes decades of study or years of danger adventuring.
I thought NPCs operate by different rules? But it sounds like you are trying to apply PC logic to NPCs, which you previously described as a big "no-no." So what is the process for NPCs to become powerful wizards? Whatever the fiction requires. But I am getting annoyed by your tendency to talk about these things as absolute truths rather than post hoc speculation about fiction.
 

I thought NPCs operate by different rules? But it sounds like you are trying to apply PC logic to NPCs, which you previously described as a big "no-no." So what is the process for NPCs to become powerful wizards? Whatever the fiction requires. But I am getting annoyed by your tendency to talk about these things as absolute truths rather than post hoc speculation about fiction.

They do operate on different rules.

NPCs don't adventure. So if he or she wants to be an archmage wizard, he or she will be old by the time he or she gets there.
PCs adventure. So if he or she wants to be an archmage wizard, he or she will be survive many dungeons and dragons.

NPC nobles don't become wizards because by the time they getmagic that surpass what they can get with their wealth, they are old geezers and fogies. So only races with long lifespans like elves have tons of noble wizards in the baseline assumption.
 

They do operate on different rules.

NPCs don't adventure. So if he or she wants to be an archmage wizard, he or she will be old by the time he or she gets there.
PCs adventure. So if he or she wants to be an archmage wizard, he or she will be survive many dungeons and dragons.

NPC nobles don't become wizards because by the time they getmagic that surpass what they can get with their wealth, they are old geezers and fogies. So only races with long lifespans like elves have tons of noble wizards in the baseline assumption.
You say that they do operate on different rules, but then you proceed by then treating NPCs with PC rules or norms that equates quickly accumulating power to adventuring for XP (i.e., a construct for PCs). What's up with that? Crazy, right? Because a NPC is as powerful as they need to be for the fiction, and they get there as quickly as they need to be for the fiction.
 

You say that they do operate on different rules, but then you proceed by then treating NPCs with PC rules or norms that equates quickly accumulating power to adventuring for XP (i.e., a construct for PCs). What's up with that? Crazy, right? Because a NPC is as powerful as they need to be for the fiction, and they get there as quickly as they need to be for the fiction.
You are confusing the DM's ability to make whatever they want and the Player's ability to make whatever PC they want for how the world works. NPCs are not born as level 6. At some point they must have been level 1-5. D&D uses XP for this.

Anyway
The typical D&D city doesn't have a full blown archmage residing in them.
The typical D&D town rarely has a true wizard of real power residing in them.
The typical D&D village almost never have a powerful arcanist residing in them.

If you are playing a level 11 wizard and walk into an average city in a typical standard D&D setting, you will likely be the the strongest wizard there. And if you are not,it isn't likely time for the big "Oh No" if you didn't specifically go to this city to meet them.
 

You are confusing the DM's ability to make whatever they want and the Player's ability to make whatever PC they want for how the world works. NPCs are not born as level 6. At some point they must have been level 1-5. D&D uses XP for this.
No, you are quite egregiously making this error in the bold.
 

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.

Sure, and if you read my post, I literally called out Dyscalculia as an exception, but as you said this is incredibly rare, you are a math tutor and I'll assume you've tutored hundreds of students over the years. And you've seen it twice.

And this is a specific inability to learn, this is not that certain math subjects are so difficult you need a specific ability to learn them. And even if you are struggling, that doesn't mean that you can't learn the skill. After all, I'd never say that someone who is deaf cannot make music, or someone who is blind cannot make art, because Beethoven and Monet show this to not necessarily be true.

Good lord, how about Sarah Biffen. Born in 1784 with no arms or legs, she was an amazing painter who was commissioned to do the royal portraits for the British Royal Family.

Are there things that humans cannot do? Sure, some people can't do somethings. But that number is far far outweighed by the sheer weight of things we can do with enough determination and desire. And if you want to convince there is something that the majority of people simply cannot learn to do, I feel you need some incredibly heavy evidence.

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

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.

Then how do you justify any baseline? If we approach the baseline of DnD with the idea that there are no rules, nothing concrete to base our ideas on, then how can we say anything?

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.

But you hit the nail on the head, those people aren't using spellcasting rules, because they aren't spellcasters.

Since we are using Eberron, I'll pull out my Exploring Eberron book. In it there is a section on Magewrights, people who have learned to use magic. They can, potentially, learn the cantrip Aundair's Silent Sanctum, which creates a 5 ft bubble that muffles all sound going in and coming out, making it harder to hear.

If a magewright has learned that cantrip, and they cast it, does it work? Yes. Does it create a 5 ft bubble? Yes. If they cast it again does it work? Yes. Does it create a 5 ft bubble? Yes.

Maybe the local smith gets divine inspiration and does an act of magic once, and that is special, but if I go before Jaela Daran and she casts a spell in Flamekeep, it works. She knows what she can do, she knows how it works, she knows what is required for it to work. Magic isn't mysterious and unknowable. Casting a spell like cure wounds does not sometimes work sometimes not, sometimes create healing energy, sometimes rot flesh, sometimes require a 1st level spell slot, sometimes require a 5th level spell slot.

You would have to either fundamentally rewrite the DnD magic system, or completely divorce the mechanics from the story. And I mean completely, Clerics should be terrified to attempt to heal someone on the verge of death, because they have no idea what they are doing, if it will work, or if they will make things worse.

And fundamentally, that is not how DnD magic is presented. Not to the players, not by the NPCs.

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.


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.

This sounds like you are agreeing with me.

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


Local heroes! Overwhelming majority of the population is level one or not even that and do not have PC classes.

Do you not understand what a local hero is?

Here, let's say that your level 3 Fighter heads out to confront a gang. They have 31 hp, and the ability to attack once per turn. At the entrance to the gang hideout they run into three thugs hired by the local crimelord.

A thug has 32 hp and attacks twice per turn.

Your local hero is outmatched. Are these thugs somehow... supermen? The entry just calls them ruthless enforcers who work for money. And they certainly don't have fighter levels, but they are also more than a match for your character who is set apart from the common masses of people.

And perhaps that is something every thief in the setting does. Or perhaps your character is the only one. Either works depending on the setting.

Sure, you can decide to do anything with a setting. I've said that, again and again and again and again.

But, if we want to talk about the baseline, what is the norm, what people should expect, then looking at the setting neutral PHB tells us that this Arcane Trickster wasn't special. They were a common thief who decided "eh, I'll learn some magic to make this easier" and did so.

Maybe that makes them 1 in ten trillion in a specific setting, but the PHB doesn't treat that decision as being something that they are one of the few people in the entire world to do. The treat it like getting accosted by a gang of them wouldn't be uncommon in a big city.


Any person without some severe learning disability would learn at least some basics of those things, yes. And that works if you assume spellcasting to be a thing of similar scope and depth than the things you mention. But I don't. A person not gifted in magic would learn some magic theory or perhaps learn to meditate or some other initial steps like that depending on the magic paradigm. But they wouldn't necessarily learn to cast actual spells. That to me is a higher level of competence, comparable to being a successful specialist on the field.

And as you love to bring rules into this, I'd like to point out that all the things you mention would simple skill or tool proficiencies in D&D, whereas the lowest level of magic competency, the magic initiate, requires a feat, which is worth three skills. More potent spellcasting requires committing a full class or a subclass to it.

And whilst we are talking about rules, does the noble NPC in MM has spellcasting? It does not. Certainly this represent 'a typical noble' thus we can conclude that a typical noble is not a spellcaster.

And being able to actually bandage a wound and heal someone with a healer's kit, something I would expect a field medic to do, also takes a feat. So, EMT and Wizard are back on the same footing.

And yes, the noble statblock does not currently have spellcasting. I know that, but I also am pushing back against this idea that they should be the expectation.

After all, one aspect of this conversation is that we have focused solely on humans. Spreading out our consideration, none of the "but it takes too long" arguments hold even an ounce of water for Gnomes, Dwarves or Elves. And we actually have statblock proof that important members of orc tribes have spellcasting.

Mysteriousness is far more than whether it will work or not. And of course whilst the cleric might have pretty good idea what is the scope of the aid they may expect from their deity, this doesn't mean the other characters have such understanding. But ultimately this is more about attitudes and how you describe things. Players are fully capable of pretending that their characters are perplexed and horrified by an unknown tentacle faced creature whilst the players fully well know the stats of the mind flayers. The same thing.

No it isn't, as I discussed above in this post.

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


Way to move goalposts.

We were talking about wizard governments not wizard organizations.
We were talking about a nation where most of the nobles become arcane spellcasters.

I already said FR is weird. It has way more NPCs with PC classes and PCs running around in it and Wildemont is a practically the same thing with the names changed and everything shuffled around. The MTG settings can't be used either because they are built off a different baseline. It's like saying LOTR or Westeros are the baseline and therefore there are less than 5 spellcasters on a whole continent.

Again, the baseline assumption of a D&D is a late Medieval era feudal world with roaming armies and monsters in anyplace not right next to a town. Metropolises are rare. One noble house per town. A few noble families in a large city. Travel without escorts or constant patrols are extremely dangerous. Special services are far and fewer between.

Most wizards of power able to force themselves could do so. However nobles in D&D already have power. They collect taxes and manage the armies that keeps the villages, towns, and cities standing. There would be little reason for a noble to risk themselves traveling to find a wizard tutor or going on adventures just to retire back as landowning nobles. Most of the effects of low level magic can be purchased already from wealth. And getting to mid levels outside of magocracy takes decades of study or years of danger adventuring.

Supporting evidence is not moving goalposts.

You have claimed that becoming a wizard is such a long and ardrous process that a wizard could not also be trained in politics. I have now presented dozens of wizard guilds that are political actors, meaning that they are both wizards and politicians.

I find it interesting that you want to disregard Ravnica though, because it was built under a different set of assumptions. Because I've been arguing that those settings we keep talking about were built in 2e, under a different set of assumptions than we have in 5e, yet I am supposed to bend the assumptions of DnD towards those second edition versions rather than the modern assumptions. And you wanted me to do so because of the number of settings older than 5e, but since everyone wants to keep claiming that setting is king... well the official settings for DnD 5e are FR, Wildemount, Ravnica, Eberron and Barovia, and that is 4/5 in much higher magic. So, I'm following the majority of setting expectations here, aren't I?
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top