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
Right, I don't disagree with any of this.

Except, that 1st level spells are also not the realm of people at the top of the distribution.
This is what you are failing to understand. Where 1st level spells sit on the distribution DEPENDS ON THE SETTING.

In Eberron, cantrips are what most people can learn: A-levels. 1st level spells are degree level education. 2nd is postgrad. Anything higher is world class talent. You teach yourself because there are no teachers at that level.

And that's the setting with the most easily accessible magic. In a more typical setting it takes 10 years study to master a cantrip, a hundred years study to master a 1st level spell. Hence most wizards are ether elves or really old.

In other settings, only people who are inherently magical can ever learn to cast a spell. Muggles will never be able to do it no matter how much studying they do. The majority of humans have Dismagica - magic blindness.

This has nothing to do with D&D rules, which are for player characters ONLY. It is purely at the whim of the setting creator/DM. If the DM wants to create a setting where even high level spells can easily be learned that can do that too.

Now I would challenge the original assumption. There is no "baseline" that D&D settings either conform to or deviate from. It's an unhelpful idea. Each setting is what it is.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

So a n that a party fights a necromancer, the necromancer was born at 11th level?
What?
Something of a strawman, since this position is not what I am arguing. You may, however, be stuck in a 3e mindset where NPCs follow the same rules as PCs and are constructed in a similar manner, but that has not been the case in D&D since 4e. NPCs and PCs operate and are constructed according to different rules. Levels are a PC construct. XP are a PC construct. NPCs are not bound by or operate by these PC-facing mechanics. A NPC Necromancer is not necessarily born at 11th level, but that is because level is a PC construct. However, the path or alacrity by which a NPC reached their power does not necessarily follow PC assumptions, but is instead determined entirely by the whims or needs of the GM for the fiction. Hence the irony that you accuse me of forgetting that NPCs and PCs operate by different rules in the same breath where you commit a similar "sin."
 

Something of a strawman, since this position is not what I am arguing. You may, however, be stuck in a 3e mindset where NPCs follow the same rules as PCs and are constructed in a similar manner, but that has not been the case in D&D since 4e. NPCs and PCs operate and are constructed according to different rules. Levels are a PC construct. XP are a PC construct. NPCs are not bound by or operate by these PC-facing mechanics. A NPC Necromancer is not necessarily born at 11th level, but that is because level is a PC construct. However, the path or alacrity by which a NPC reached their power does not necessarily follow PC assumptions, but is instead determined entirely by the whims or needs of the GM for the fiction. Hence the irony that you accuse me of forgetting that NPCs and PCs operate by different rules in the same breath where you commit a similar "sin."

I am confused.
What do you mean the NPC doesn'tfollow the same rules as a PC.
A necromancer NPC who has the slots of a 11th level spellcaster is a 11th level spellcaster. Their top level slot is a 6th level spell slot.
Which means at some point it had the slots of a 10th, 9th, 8th, etc level spellcasters.

If you are going by a premise that a NPC's stats are purely made up with no sense of logic to the aspects in the stat block, then you are going against a idea that the nobility can mass learn arcane magic. Because it is purely DM fiat and not part of a concept ripped from the books.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the ability to learn arcane magic is wholey up to the whims of the DM and there is no baseline AND say there is a baseline of ability to learn arcane magic and that baseline allows anyone with money to learn wizardry.
 

Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Mystara, Birthright, Dragonlance, Nentir Vale... they all match the baseline.

The problem is by definition... the baseline is not good for sales as "nothing happens" as only epic level beings can trutly push the world forward or create new things."

That's why WOTC loves FR. You can make anything and jam it in FR. That's why many people don't like FR. It's a never ending kitchen sink made to incorporate every new idea.

You know what is interesting about all those things you listed? None of them are official settings for 5e.

Blackmoor seems to have been discontinued as a DnD setting back in the 80's, with subsequent releases of it being through a third party. Mystara lasted a little longer being officially discontinued before the release of third editions, back in 2000. Same thing with Birthright, which existed for four years and was discontinued officially by 2000.

So, that is three of your listed settings that have not been official settings for three editions of the game, using your own definition of how the weight falls to the majority of editions, that would take them out of consideration entirely.

That leaves the following

Greyhawk, which I covered and is swarming with wizards and wizard guilds. Which is not the baseline of magic being rare

Nentir Vale was the 4e setting, and while I don't remember reading any official source material for it, since it was the official setting for all of the 4e options, and I know that 4e had magic dripping from its pores, I'm going to say that it was far more magical than most other settings.

And Dragonlance... I'll give you Dragonlance. Sure, they have an international set of mage's guilds, but magic is based on the moons and it is fairly rare from what I remember from the novels.



So, in summary. Out of a named ten settings, 6 have relatively common magic (I'm not going to disagree that greyhawk has less magic than eberron or ravnica), three have been discontinued for the majority of editions at this point, and one matches this supposed "baseline"

Which, again, makes me feel like the "baseline" isn't actually what you keep claiming it is.

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


This is what you are failing to understand. Where 1st level spells sit on the distribution DEPENDS ON THE SETTING.

In Eberron, cantrips are what most people can learn: A-levels. 1st level spells are degree level education. 2nd is postgrad. Anything higher is world class talent. You teach yourself because there are no teachers at that level.

And that's the setting with the most easily accessible magic. In a more typical setting it takes 10 years study to master a cantrip, a hundred years study to master a 1st level spell. Hence most wizards are ether elves or really old.

In other settings, only people who are inherently magical can ever learn to cast a spell. Muggles will never be able to do it no matter how much studying they do. The majority of humans have Dismagica - magic blindness.

This has nothing to do with D&D rules, which are for player characters ONLY. It is purely at the whim of the setting creator/DM. If the DM wants to create a setting where even high level spells can easily be learned that can do that too.

Now I would challenge the original assumption. There is no "baseline" that D&D settings either conform to or deviate from. It's an unhelpful idea. Each setting is what it is.

There is no DnD setting I am aware of where mastering a first level spell takes a hundred years. If there were, no humans would ever be mages.

But, I'm starting to get the feeling that most people were not arguing against my points to Minigiant about how the baseline is different than he was claiming, and instead were engaging with the idea that the baseline does not even exist in the first place.

Which, obviously I can't argue with you over how something has shifted if you don't believe it existed in the first place. I just wish people had been more clear that they didn't believe a DnD Baselines has ever existed. I thought everyone saying "the setting is whatever the DM wants" were more saying that all changes to the baseline came from the DM, not the rules. Not that, "every DMs whims decide the setting, so no such thing as baseline DnD exists"

Those are obviously different arguments.

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


I am confused.
What do you mean the NPC doesn'tfollow the same rules as a PC.
A necromancer NPC who has the slots of a 11th level spellcaster is a 11th level spellcaster. Their top level slot is a 6th level spell slot.
Which means at some point it had the slots of a 10th, 9th, 8th, etc level spellcasters.

If you are going by a premise that a NPC's stats are purely made up with no sense of logic to the aspects in the stat block, then you are going against a idea that the nobility can mass learn arcane magic. Because it is purely DM fiat and not part of a concept ripped from the books.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the ability to learn arcane magic is wholey up to the whims of the DM and there is no baseline AND say there is a baseline of ability to learn arcane magic and that baseline allows anyone with money to learn wizardry.

I think you and myself were the only two people in this discussion who agreed that DnD has some sort of baseline. Everyone else does not believe that a DnD baseline exists at all, they see each setting as entirely divorced from the assumptions of each other setting and the rule books.

Meanwhile, myself and you agree a baseline exists, we are just arguing over how that baseline has changed over the past few decades of the game's existence.
 

There is no DnD setting I am aware of where mastering a first level spell takes a hundred years. If there were, no humans would ever be mages.
No. human player characters could still be mages.

Because player characters do not follow the same rules as the rest of the world.

If anything is a baseline assumption of D&D it's Player Character Exceptionalism.

(we can deduce that any human NPC wizard has come by their power by some means other than just study, or has an artificially extended lifespan).
 

@Chaosmancer

I think your issue is you see the level of magic as one lever whereas I see it as at least 3.

There are Magic Power, Magic Frequency, and Magic Ease of Use or Accessibility.

Just because they is a lot of magic item, many magic users in specific areas, and a few epic spellcasters does not mean access to spellcasting is easy.

This is the thing. The default assumption of D&D has old dungeon and ancient dragons. This means that the magic business has been going on for millennia.

The widespread amount of magic items and spellbooks are due to build up over time and not due to new wizards and clerics spitting out new items. It's a High Magic power, High Magic Frequency, Low Magic Accessibility game. Most wizards are weak and it's difficult to teach wizardry. Sorcerers who can tap into their gifts are rare. Warlocks are uncommon and unusually too doomed by their patton's schemes to go far. Churches can only produce so many powerful clerics and paladins.

As for settings, 5e has been criticized for not printing nor supporting enough settings. Especially since WOTC choose to support MTG settings over creating new ones or supporting old ones.
 

No. human player characters could still be mages.

Because player characters do not follow the same rules as the rest of the world.

If anything is a baseline assumption of D&D it's Player Character Exceptionalism.

(we can deduce that any human NPC wizard has come by their power by some means other than just study, or has an artificially extended lifespan).

.....

Just how do you imagine that conversation going.

Player: "Okay, I've got my character ready. Human wizard."
DM: "Um, did you not read the campaign setting, mastering even the most basic of spells takes a hundred years of study. No human can live that long."
Player: "No normal human, but my wizard was an alchemist, and he developed an elixir that made him semi-immortal. He's a thousand years old. Plenty of time to have learned magic."


Also, I could never justify magic taking 100 years to learn 1st level spells... because then it would logically take the PCs at least a hundred years to learn 2nd level spells. Meaning that my campaign would have to span at least 400 years of history for them to get to level 9.

Bit extreme.


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


@Chaosmancer

I think your issue is you see the level of magic as one lever whereas I see it as at least 3.

There are Magic Power, Magic Frequency, and Magic Ease of Use or Accessibility.

Just because they is a lot of magic item, many magic users in specific areas, and a few epic spellcasters does not mean access to spellcasting is easy.

This is the thing. The default assumption of D&D has old dungeon and ancient dragons. This means that the magic business has been going on for millennia.

The widespread amount of magic items and spellbooks are due to build up over time and not due to new wizards and clerics spitting out new items. It's a High Magic power, High Magic Frequency, Low Magic Accessibility game. Most wizards are weak and it's difficult to teach wizardry. Sorcerers who can tap into their gifts are rare. Warlocks are uncommon and unusually too doomed by their patton's schemes to go far. Churches can only produce so many powerful clerics and paladins.

We aren't talking about Magic Power at all. That is static across DnD.

And we don't care about magic items at all for these discussions. A magic sword is not a wizard. Neither is a magic carpet.


We care about the number of people able to become wizards through the study of magic. And, if magic is so difficult to learn, then it doesn't matter how many spell books are in existence, magic is still rare and hard to learn. Whether you have a hundred, a thousand or a million spellbooks doesn't make a difference if you are claiming only a dozen people can ever learn magic.

But we don't see that. We see hundreds if not thousands of wizards in a setting. Just human wizards, not counting the other races at all.

If in any generation, there are enough humans that can learn magic to fill a football stadium, then it isn't actually as difficult to learn magic as you keep claiming.

As for settings, 5e has been criticized for not printing nor supporting enough settings. Especially since WOTC choose to support MTG settings over creating new ones or supporting old ones.

Most of the unsupported settings weren't supported in 3.X or 4e either, so I'm not really seeing what this has to do with anything. Blackmoor was discontinued in the 80's according to what I saw.

And, criticized by some, not criticized by others. It has been a mixed bag.
 

Player: "Okay, I've got my character ready. Human wizard."
DM: "Um, did you not read the campaign setting, mastering even the most basic of spells takes a hundred years of study. No human can live that long."
Player: "No normal human, but my wizard was an alchemist, and he developed an elixir that made him semi-immortal. He's a thousand years old. Plenty of time to have learned magic."
You just don't get it, do you. The player character doesn't need hundreds of years of study. They just need to be A PLAYER CHARACTER. They are not governed by the same rules as the rest of the world.

Go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark. What Henry Jones Jnr goes through would kill a normal human 10 times over. He doesn't have superpowers, he is able to survive because he is a player character. Normal rules do not apply to him.
 

I am confused.
What do you mean the NPC doesn'tfollow the same rules as a PC.
A necromancer NPC who has the slots of a 11th level spellcaster is a 11th level spellcaster. Their top level slot is a 6th level spell slot.
Which means at some point it had the slots of a 10th, 9th, 8th, etc level spellcasters.

If you are going by a premise that a NPC's stats are purely made up with no sense of logic to the aspects in the stat block, then you are going against a idea that the nobility can mass learn arcane magic. Because it is purely DM fiat and not part of a concept ripped from the books.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the ability to learn arcane magic is wholey up to the whims of the DM and there is no baseline AND say there is a baseline of ability to learn arcane magic and that baseline allows anyone with money to learn wizardry.
You are applying PC rules/constructs to NPCs. Let's take, for example, a Noble from the MM. It's not really a level-anything character. It's not a class. It's a stock stat block that a GM could use to represent a potential noble. But a GM could also grab the Archmage character and use that to represent a Noble NPC. The sagely court wizard could be represented with an Apprentice Wizard. It doesn't matter. But how these NPCs accrued their power is not necessarily consistent with how PCs accrued theirs because AS YOU SAID NPCs and PCs follow different rules. XP is something that PCs acquire. It is not something that NPCs acquire. Same is true for things like levels, class, and even hit dice.

Furthermore, prior character experience does not factor into PC creation as well. A GM tells the players to create some level 1 characters. Two players make a fighter. One character creates a grizzled veteran of five continental wars/campaigns, and the other makes a farmboy who just received "My First Sword & Board" from Acme. They would both be represented as level 1 characters regardless of prior experience.

I am sympathetic to the fact that you clearly believe that there should be a consistency or coherence to these things, but that was mainly a design value from the days of 3e rather than 4e or 5e.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top