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
It's pretty clear that you consider the vast majority of movies, novels and TV series parodies. Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Star Wars, Murder She Wrote, Die Hard, EastEnders, Lord of the Rings - name pretty much anything. They all have central characters with plot armour (and other abilities not shared by the rest of the population). Star Trek gave us the term "redshirt" AKA "a character without plot armour".
But in those stories plot armour isn't acknowledged as an in-universe force. The argument you are making here:
That is correct, just read the comics. It's not uncommon for someone to don a costume and try and emulate Batman. And they are dead before the end of the issue.

Batman can't do what he does because of his training, or because he is smart, or rich.

Batman does what he does because HE IS BATMAN.
Is tantamount to declaring such, that plot-armour is a diegetic force that the inhabitants of that fictional universe are aware of and acknowledge.

Besides, Batman does what he does because the author (or more accurately, the editorial board) says he can, not because there is some intrinsic essence of "Batman" that empowers individuals who take up the cowl in-universe to become more than the sum of their parts. The comics writers, or the screenwriters for the film and TV adaptations of Batman, are perfectly free to write a story where Batman finds himself surpassed by an individual who isn't using the Batman name. They just don't typically tend to, because superhero media tends to be a self-referential ouroboros, walking the tightrope of nostalgia and shock value, with coherent plot and good character development often being relegated to third place at best.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I knew you weren't saying that.

I was saying that characters pursue the class, skills, or HD that they have the most affinity to and access to. And how far they go is based on the level of spark or passion they have provided they do not die in the process.

So there will be a wide spread of classes available to nobles as their different talents and passions will pull them in different directions. One would have to culturally enforce, religiously indoctrinate, magically alter, or selectively bred the nobility of "normal races" into being majority 1 class..
Sure, but it isn't far-fetched to imagine that certain choices are heavily favored, for practical, cultural, etc. reasons. Nor is it far-fetched to assume that the classes with the most raw power would rise to the top of the hierarchy. I would say that magic users (or maybe clerics) in most versions of D&D fit that bill. Beyond that, while combat prowess is no doubt useful, it is only useful if you are fighting. Magic is useful in virtually all the possible range of situations. Admittedly, if you posit more harsh conditions, you might say "well, but a given magic user has very limited spell resources, and there are lots of fights that leaders must participate in." This could be true, but then my experience playing all editions of D&D (except 3.0) tell me that in almost all those cases magic users/wizards can pretty much hold their own, especially with the support of what would presumably be a staff of other characters (soldiers, local priests, etc.).

I think, realistically, the only tenable objection to a largely magical aristocracy where full casters are the favored holders of power, is the "requires too much study" argument. That may be sufficient for some. Considering what I can see of history though, individuals with an academic set of accomplishments are not exactly absent from the halls of power in the world today, nor in the Middle Ages (given that education was rare back then). Were that education to result in powers such as charms, invisibility, and other highly useful magics, I would think it would only be MORE common.

So, I feel like in most worlds it would be logically consistent if a pretty significant fraction of rulers were full casters, and if a pretty significant fraction of full casters were rulers too!
 

Sure, but it isn't far-fetched to imagine that certain choices are heavily favored, for practical, cultural, etc. reasons. Nor is it far-fetched to assume that the classes with the most raw power would rise to the top of the hierarchy.
But individuals with the most raw power haven't always risen to the top of our hierarchies - at least in the pre-modern world. Until the 19th century, wealthy merchants and financiers were stymied in their efforts to run states by aristocrats who had the bloodlines and legitimacy. Ronin were great warriors, but had no social power because their lords stripped them of their status. The difference between a samurai and a ronin wasn't skill - it was legitimacy. In any stable system, you can't gain and keep power without legitimacy, and raw power is not the only (or even the main) way you get it.
I think, realistically, the only tenable objection to a largely magical aristocracy where full casters are the favored holders of power, is the "requires too much study" argument. That may be sufficient for some. Considering what I can see of history though, individuals with an academic set of accomplishments are not exactly absent from the halls of power in the world today, nor in the Middle Ages (given that education was rare back then). Were that education to result in powers such as charms, invisibility, and other highly useful magics, I would think it would only be MORE common.
The highly educated were often in positions of influence, but they rarely had secure power. Think of the slaves, freedmen, and eunuchs who served various empires as administrators. They had official roles, could set policy, influence rulers. But they almost never took over states because the legitimate rulers - the emperors and kings and queens - always ensured they couldn't. You could be the shrewdest and riches eunuch in Byzantium, but you would never be emperor, nor would anyone carry on your legacy after you were dead.
 

Here's where I have difficulty with the concept that "Nobles would just hire out their magic needs." Why would mages, who have all this power, need to rent themselves out at all? If I can simply charm people into doing what I want, put them to sleep so I can do whatever I want, make people into my friends, read minds, etc. then I'm actually a pretty powerful guy (given that I can do everything else that some laird can accomplish, except maybe pigstick people with great effect, heck I'm probably good enough in a fight to beat average townspeople). I'm just using 1e PHB here as an example.

Now, I think that the way 1e's magic user rules work, some random peasant who managed to learn basic spell casting and was smart enough to use that skill, would probably not know how to do MANY of these things (he'd have a few random spells). However, a TRADITION of studying magic, that would quickly produce (in at most a couple generations) a pretty significant repertoire of lower level spells.

Certainly the aristocrat who can cast Friends, Forget, Invisibility, Write, Erase, and Strength (as a kind of reasonable example of a repertoire you might develop) would be at a pretty significant advantage over his brother, Sir McFighter, as a ruler. Why wouldn't he rise to power? At least more often than not...

My point is: those who cultivated an ability to use magic WOULD BE the rules, because they COULD BE and nobody could easily stop them! Granted, these low level spells might not be ENOUGH on their own to guarantee power, but once you're established, dynastic power is clearly favored, so you and your scions would most likely stay there, and continue this tradition.
 

Here's where I have difficulty with the concept that "Nobles would just hire out their magic needs." Why would mages, who have all this power, need to rent themselves out at all? If I can simply charm people into doing what I want, put them to sleep so I can do whatever I want, make people into my friends, read minds, etc. then I'm actually a pretty powerful guy (given that I can do everything else that some laird can accomplish, except maybe pigstick people with great effect, heck I'm probably good enough in a fight to beat average townspeople). I'm just using 1e PHB here as an example.
This depends on how common and powerful magic is and what the general attitudes toward it are. It would be perfectly possible that like in medieval Europe the people are highly fearful and hostile towards magic (and magic being real makes this rather reasonable!) and it is only by the protection and sufferance of the authorities that the magic users can exist at all without ending up as kindling.

Certainly the aristocrat who can cast Friends, Forget, Invisibility, Write, Erase, and Strength (as a kind of reasonable example of a repertoire you might develop) would be at a pretty significant advantage over his brother, Sir McFighter, as a ruler. Why wouldn't he rise to power? At least more often than not...

My point is: those who cultivated an ability to use magic WOULD BE the rules, because they COULD BE and nobody could easily stop them! Granted, these low level spells might not be ENOUGH on their own to guarantee power, but once you're established, dynastic power is clearly favored, so you and your scions would most likely stay there, and continue this tradition.
This could happen if learning magic was so easy that you could guarantee that your heir can do it too. And because in most setting this doesn't happen, I'd conclude that in those it is not that easy. And if we assume that magical capability is enough to gain power, then certainly greater magical capability would be enough to usurp it. Thus a wizard-based magocracy would more likely end up as some sort of meritocracy, with those of the greatest skill and power rising on top regardless of their lineage. Though as I said earlier, sorcerers might be more suitable for hereditary magical aristocracy, albeit even then it would depend on how reliably the magical ability is inherited.
 
Last edited:

Sure, but it isn't far-fetched to imagine that certain choices are heavily favored, for practical, cultural, etc. reasons. Nor is it far-fetched to assume that the classes with the most raw power would rise to the top of the hierarchy.

My argument is not that "a single wizard can't get to the top of the hierarchy." It's "the majority of a ruling class of the single heirachy would not be mages in D&D without a cultural or racial effort to make it such."

A king being a wizard? Makes sense. A few kings and nobles being wizards? Of course. Every member of House Black, White, Red, Blue, Green, Gray, Strong, Swift, Wolf,Lion, Dragon, Bear, Leopard, Stag, and Shark are wizards? Not likely unless they are "elves", evil, corrupt, special, or desperate.

Here's where I have difficulty with the concept that "Nobles would just hire out their magic needs." Why would mages, who have all this power, need to rent themselves out at all?

Because 99% of mages are weak.
What power?
Same with fighters, rogues, clerics, and the rest. Most people are low level. Even the ones with PC classes.
Not many get to the "Heroic Tier."
A select few with true specialness or talent escape the "Heroic Tier".

What makes FR weird is that it isa setting where everyone and their grandma is in the heroic tier and a huge chunk survive to the next tier.
 

And as I said earlier, I don't remember a single official setting where talentless upper class twits are routinely tutored to be wizards.

I love how it has gone from "Nobles wouldn't have time to learn magic on top of all their other studies" to "I've never seen a setting where all the stupid people are highly educated"

Before it was that they were too busy, now they aren't intelligent enough. Wonder if soon they will be too busy forming a band in their parent's garage, but then they would be bards and we'd go back to them not having enough time.

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

Exactly. The game doesn't give us any of them. Because the game only covers adventurers. It is not a set of rules by which the world can operate, and if you try to use them as such the result you get is nonsense.

And if you don't apply some logic then PCs just apparate out of then air fully formed, which is also nonsense.

I'll take the nonsense that has some grounding in logic.

It's pretty clear that you consider the vast majority of movies, novels and TV series parodies. Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Star Wars, Murder She Wrote, Die Hard, EastEnders, Lord of the Rings - name pretty much anything. They all have central characters with plot armour (and other abilities not shared by the rest of the population). Star Trek gave us the term "redshirt" AKA "a character without plot armour".

So every person on the Enterprise who was in Engineering knew that they were fodder to be killed off in the episode? Because that is what being a red shirt meant, so they must have known that is was going to happen, right?

Or, did they not have the context of that within the world of Star Trek?


That is what I am saying, within the world of Star Trek they do not know that the Red Shirt is a sign of death and that the Captain will never be killed off. It is not a real fact in the world of the setting. The only time it gets brought up as a fact in the world is in comedy skits, because if it were true, then people in engineering would avoid leaving the ship and wear an emergency blue shirt under their uniform.

The cracks only show if you look for them. The worlds of Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Murder She Wrote, EastEnders (to name things that have something comparable to 400 hours) are all full of cracks, but people choose to ignore them so as to enjoy the fiction.

Do you know the difference between watching a show and playing a game set in a world?

Increased engagement.

You engage more with the world and its logic as a player than you do as an observer. And, despite that, the "Red Shirt" problem is something that people point out about the show. People can choose to ignore it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a crack in the way people interact with the world of Star Trek.

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


A 3rd level wizard is a full fledged mage.
But there aren't a complete image of a wizard. They are fresh out of apprenticeship.

In older editions, you get that at "name level". In 5e, you get that at level 5.
Do you expect a magocracy to be run by newbs?

Again, who is the stronger fighter. The King or the King's Champion?

It doesn't matter that they are "fresh our ot apprenticeship" because if they don't keep studying magic they won't progress in the class. they could be 3rd level and have finished their training two decades ago.


How so?
Fighters offers Strong, Fast, and Tough people to join. Only the Smart can be wizards.
3 > 1
Then you have access to training. More access to martial training than magical training in the base assumption.

Ah, I thought you were saying that fighters had to be strong and tough and fast. Not Strong or Tough or Fast.

Must be even more paladins since they need to be strong or fast or tough or charismatic.

I'm not dismissing their usefulness.
I am dismissing their use by people who can buy the same effects with ease.

The strength of 1st and 2nd level spells is for "middle class" and poor people who don't have a whole team of servants and a network of hireable experts. You know... adventurers.

Ah yes, I forget about those experts who specialize in letting you read other people's minds. Or those experts who can make you invisible.

Not really. The baseline didn't change. Low level classes are just less terrible.

This is completely wrong, since if low level classes were terrible... that was part of the baseline.


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


This depends on how common and powerful magic is and what the general attitudes toward it are. It would be perfectly possible that like in medieval Europe the people are highly fearful and hostile towards magic (and magic being real makes this rather reasonable!) and it is only by the protection and sufferance of the authorities that the magic users can exist at all without ending up as kindling.

You realize people were hostile to magic in medieval europe because they thought it was the work of demons, right? People didn't fear magic before that, in fact Christian Spell Charms can be found dating back to the Roman Empire. Druids performed "magic" and they were leaders within their communities.


And in DnD there are literal gods of magic. Boccob may not be a benevolent good guy, but he certainly isn't a devil seeking to drag souls to the Nine Hells, that's Asmodeus's stick.

And, there is a good point to be made about legitimate authority. If the magic-users are the legitimate authority, they are going to dictate policy. Your assumption that magic only exists at the benevolence of the ruling class assumes that the ruling class existed in whole, and then the magic-users came in and started trying to do things. But, DnD clearly shows us that magic came before most of these existing structures.

In fact, the history of fallen Magocracies in DnD worlds means that the idea that the people who are in charge are those who can use magic would be familiar to the common people, because that is how it was.
 

I love how it has gone from "Nobles wouldn't have time to learn magic on top of all their other studies" to "I've never seen a setting where all the stupid people are highly educated"

Before it was that they were too busy, now they aren't intelligent enough. Wonder if soon they will be too busy forming a band in their parent's garage, but then they would be bards and we'd go back to them not having enough time.
No, my stance always was that it is perfectly possible that learning magic requires an individual to be particularly gifted on that area in order to learn it at all or at least learn it in a sane amount of time.

You realize people were hostile to magic in medieval europe because they thought it was the work of demons, right? People didn't fear magic before that, in fact Christian Spell Charms can be found dating back to the Roman Empire. Druids performed "magic" and they were leaders within their communities.


And in DnD there are literal gods of magic. Boccob may not be a benevolent good guy, but he certainly isn't a devil seeking to drag souls to the Nine Hells, that's Asmodeus's stick.

And, there is a good point to be made about legitimate authority. If the magic-users are the legitimate authority, they are going to dictate policy. Your assumption that magic only exists at the benevolence of the ruling class assumes that the ruling class existed in whole, and then the magic-users came in and started trying to do things. But, DnD clearly shows us that magic came before most of these existing structures.

In fact, the history of fallen Magocracies in DnD worlds means that the idea that the people who are in charge are those who can use magic would be familiar to the common people, because that is how it was.

What part of 'depends on attitudes' you didn't understand? It was expressed as one possible setup for a setting, I was obviously not talking about Forgotten Realms. I played in a long campaign where all magic besides divine magic from one specific god was considered heresy. (At least until our characters arranged some mild reforms...)
 

Again, who is the stronger fighter. The King or the King's Champion?

Answer is "Depends of the Kingdom."
You don't neccessarily want the King doing the Champion's job regardless of martial skill.
It doesn't matter that they are "fresh our ot apprenticeship" because if they don't keep studying magic they won't progress in the class. they could be 3rd level and have finished their training two decades ago.
It matters how strong they are and how impactful their skills are.

Ah, I thought you were saying that fighters had to be strong and tough and fast. Not Strong or Tough or Fast.

Must be even more paladins since they need to be strong or fast or tough or charismatic.
Or.

Fighter is the only D&D class that by the rules runs of multiple primary ability scores. So more people qualify.

Ah yes, I forget about those experts who specialize in letting you read other people's minds. Or those experts who can make you invisible.

with 1st and 2nd level spells?
Again the rules even in 5e says 3rd level spells are hard to buy because those who can do it are rare and use this to extract better terms in exchanges.

This is completely wrong, since if low level classes were terrible... that was part of the baseline.
They are terrible and part of the baseline.
In 0e to 3e, you were very weak at low levels.
4e 1st level was like more like every other edition's 5th level.
And 5e encourages DMs to speed through the first 3 levels as you suck at those levels.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top