• We are currently being subjected to a massive wave of spambots. We have temporarily closed registration to new accounts while we clean it up.

Worlds of Design: Consistent Fantasy Ecologies

Every world has an ecology, but is it believable?

earth-5486511_1280.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery, author of the Little Prince, poet, journalist, and aviator.​

Every world has an ecology; if you want your fantasy world to be believable, you’ll need to pay attention to how it works: how does each living group fit with all the others and with the world? What might your world design goals be in general?

What’s an Ecology?​

Broadly defined, an ecology is the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings. If the ecology doesn't make sense in your world, you risk breaking immersion for the player (or reader). The more interested you are in making up a world rather than a setting or just an area to play in, the more likely you are to care about consistency and immersion. Perhaps ecology and self-consistency are more important for novels than games, but they are important in games for many people.

Fantasy author Glen Cook (The Black Company series) once said he didn’t like maps, because they constrained his authorial freedom of action. And to some extent, creating an ecology means creating consistency in which the game master (or designer or author) cannot easily break their own rules without it being noticeable. This necessarily limits some creative freedom, although I would argue the tradeoffs are worth it for immersion and consistency.

Monster Basics​

In world building you can look at this as a matter of survival. If there is a very powerful monster, or numerous and prolific species, or long-lived or aggressive species, how do other species exist, how do they survive contact with those species?

An obvious example would be a world with thousands of dragons. Food chains are important. What do dragons eat and how do other creatures survive? Won’t the dragons eat all the other creatures? Relative power, ability to cast spells, ability to rise in levels, all come into play as well. For an example of how this can get rapidly out of control, see Raph Koster's commentary on Ultima Online's resource system-- an ecology that was massively disrupted when players murdered everything in sight.

Don't just throw together a bunch of statistics, try to fit the monster into the world. Monsters can be merely monsters or they can be monstrosities. What is a monstrosity? (see my article, "Make Monsters, Not Monstrosities,” in Dragon Magazine #59) A monstrosity doesn't seem to fit together or make sense, or strikes one as extraordinarily gross. It's a strange combination. I prefer to design monsters that seem more believable (see my Monster Workshop Part 1 and Part 2).

Species Basics​

Typically, a fantasy world has more than one intelligent species and often many more. It also has some very powerful monsters, so an immediate question should be “how have humans survived in this environment?” Why haven't they been wiped out? There is evidence for this in our modern world – genetic data suggests that our human ancestors nearly went extinct 900,00 years ago, down to a group of only 1,280 individuals.

You can ask the same question about other intelligent humanoids and other species, of course. In my world humans survive because they are more versatile than other creatures, and reproduce fairly fast. They depend on magic use and also on their ability to rise in level, which other species can rarely do. Further, few species can make magic items or use magic items. For an example of how this might work between species, see the research around how Neanderthals went extinct.

Differentiation​

In your world design try to avoid duplication. Make sure to practice differentiation deliberately as much as possible; these are also game design goals of course, not just world design.

In game design, whatever you think about differences between species, it's important to avoid treating them as a monoculture. This is bad for fiction and is a common problem with sci-fi settings, in which entire worlds are reduced to one population with one culture; our own planet is host to a dizzying variety. This is also bad for game design, where you want differentiation to provide variety, and if differentiation is not there you probably should eliminate the duplication to simplify the game. In some rulesets or campaigns humans are the only intelligent humanoid species. If all the humanoid species are practically identical, why have anything but humans in the game?

In the end, it’s really about what your design goals are for your world. If you use your world as a playground for ideas (and in some cases for new game masters, their games lack internal consistency to start but form more solid ecologies as they play in their world), then have at it. Many people have enjoyed RPGs that make little common sense, in favor of just having a good time. But if you want your world to have continuity, an ecology that makes sense will pay dividends in believability and consistency later.

Your Turn: How do you plan out ecologies for your world?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

aco175

Legend
I long thought how all the races can fit in one area without one group killing off the others for control of the resources. I can see humans and human-looking elves, dwarves, and halflings being ok with each other and working together. The more I get away from looking like us to looking more like a monster, I need to work harder to make it work. Tieflings are a step away. Then you get dragonborn which is basically a monster at this point, but they can be good people cry. Well, then it opens up the rest like orcs and gnolls and lizardfolk.

I also think that the more you travel from the core of the world to the frontier, the more you can incorporate the other races. A frontier town on the border might see a goblin PC over a city based campaign. Granted cities could have most everything, but a goblin would stick out unless he is on display. I can also see where it is fun to make expectation for hte players and then flip them, so you can have a whole group of goblins that are tolerated in the city who may do a job such as street cleaning or take it another step and have them on the ruling council.

I tend to not have so many monster types in one region. For all of 5e we tended to play in the Waterdeep / Phandalin region of Forgotten Realms. It is mostly goblins and orcs in the wild with the occasional troll and giant about. The PCs might run into more human bandits and Uthgart barbarians than they do other creature types. I like gnolls as bad guys, but they are 1,000 miles away, same for a lot of the others.
 

CorvusCarpus

Explorer
As far as gaming is concerned, the effort one put into creating a painfully coherent ecology should matter only to the extent that the players can (and maybe should or have to) alter (or even ruin) it. My point is the world should be in service of the story, a DM should ruin a beloved location or other permanent ficture of a setting if they sense it can motivate the player or otherwise advance the story.
 


Li Shenron

Legend
Your Turn: How do you plan out ecologies for your world?
I don't.

I absolutely refuse to invest my time in that. To keep a general level of verisimilitude/plausibility is easy enough that it requires no plan, just a minimum of common sense. Beyond that IMXP few people care, and those who care are probably more interested in planning their own than hearing mine, or in reading books of fantasy ecology than playing an action/adventure game. In addition, implausible or seemingly impossible things are pretty much the spice of adventures, planning and explaining too much is more likely to have a negative effect.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
As far as gaming is concerned, the effort one put into creating a painfully coherent ecology should matter only to the extent that the players can (and maybe should or have to) alter (or even ruin) it. My point is the world should be in service of the story, a DM should ruin a beloved location or other permanent ficture of a setting if they sense it can motivate the player or otherwise advance the story.
I disagree. The world stands on its own, and the players get to explore, interact with ot and change through the actions of their PCs. If they don't, the world spins on. I hate the idea of setting existing mostly as a backdrop for PC action.
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
I don't. Way too much thought for something that will last until maybe 8-10th level. It's a fun time.

I also really don't believe, since there is magic and gates and planes and summonings, that we need to worry about this all that much anyway. I certainly don't play with players that will care about this, they want fun stuff to do and see.
 

I try to make sure the vibe is coherent,but don't get too nitty gritty. It's mainly ensuring predators have ranges large enough to make sense and be sure that the prevalence of prey animals aligns with predator populations.

E.g. if a lion eats one gazelle per week, the herds need to be several hundred strong to support a handful of lions. Which for me is fun as one gazelle is a terrified victim but two hundred charging gazelle is a terrifying sight.
 

CorvusCarpus

Explorer
I disagree. The world stands on its own, and the players get to explore, interact with ot and change through the actions of their PCs. If they don't, the world spins on. I hate the idea of setting existing mostly as a backdrop for PC action.
As a GM I tend to consider the game as a story and the PCs the main protagonist; however as a player I enjoy the feeling that the whole role playing game experience is like a window into another world, so I totally understand your viewpoint.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top