Exploring the Implications of Fantasy and RPG "Standards"

[Seraph]

Many of our favorite settings are full of unanswered questions.

How is it that three THOUSAND years after the defeat of Sauron, Middle Earth has virtually no new technology or major changes in political structure?  With no apparent source of water, how do the orcs live in Mordor?  What does the presence of elves, dwarves, and so forth do to a feudal iron-age society?  
What kind of strain does living in the shadow of a dragon with a habit of kidnapping princesses have on a kingdom?  Are there hidden benefits that offset this?  
What effect does a social class of adventurers have on the local economy?  On law enforcement?  On the political system? Are adventures just things that happen, or is it a job?  Is there a union for adventurers?  
Does magic stall the advancement of technology, or free up resources to research new tech solutions?  Can weather magic eliminate famine and hunger?  Or does tampering with weather patterns lead to natural disasters down the line?  How does the magic of clerics and the intervention of deities effect religious freedom, or the dominance of a particular religion?  How do wizards and clerics change the way wars are fought?  
And I'm sure these are some of the easy ones.

Here are my goals for this thread:
1) Raise some interesting and thought-provoking questions about the impact of tropes we often take for granted.
2) Share answers (or potential answers) to those questions from settings, books, movies, or our own heads.

[Polycarp]

How is it that three THOUSAND years after the defeat of Sauron [...]

While I get where you're coming from with this thread, It's worth differentiating between settings and legends.  It's reasonable to ask these sorts of questions in a setting in which players are actually playing - in an actual game you are treating the environment of the setting as "present" and "real;" even when magic exists, certain physical laws are followed, and you expect things to make sense.  But a legend is not a campaign setting.  I don't expect a coherent answer to the problem of logistics in Mordor any more than I expect an explanation of why Freya's chariot is pulled by cats, or why seals don't have giant fingernails on their backs despite the fact that Inuit lore clearly states that seals were made from the fingers of the goddess Sedna when her father severed them to keep her from overturning his kayak.  Even if you treat them as history rather than myth, well, maybe Bilbo and Frodo are dirty liars, or just made things up.  A narrated story of deeds long past isn't obligated to "make sense" in the way that a present world, even an imaginary present, is.  Sometimes myths are popular precisely because they don't make sense.

All that aside, this is really, really broad topic.  "How can I make these cool ideas of mine make sense together in a coherent, believable way" is a question at the core of setting design; addressing it is what gets you from "dragons are cool, I like them" to an actual setting in which dragons play a part in the life and history of the people the heroes interact with every day.  I was telling Hoers about a new ecology of dragons I'd come up with on a lark just the other day, which I was spurred to do because their standard D&D presentation seemed like a poor fit for what I wanted to do, and I wanted something that made more "sense" as I saw it.  I'm certainly not the first person to do that, and everyone does it in their own way because everyone has different ideas as to not only what's "cool," but what's sensible and coherent.

I mean... just knowing where to begin here is daunting.  Just one of these questions (e.g. "How does magic affect the advancement of technology") could be its own thread.  Is there somewhere you'd like to start?

[Seraph]

I get what you are saying about it being open-ended.  I want it to be open to discuss various topics as people desire, but for a start, since it applies to most GAMES we play, lets focus on the adventurers. 

What effect does a social class of adventurers have on the local economy?  On law enforcement?  On the political system? Are adventures just things that happen, or is it a full-time job?  Is there a union for adventurers?

Because while I am sure that there were a few people in history who actually made their living by going from place to place taking care of problems for people, that's mostly the purview of folklore, and more recently fiction.  Because while settings often make a point of mentioning that the PCs are special, any published setting is FILLED with characters who do this kind of thing, and so will be any homebrewed setting that goes on long enough, or is introduced to more than just one group.  Therefore we have to assume that there are at least a measurable number of adventurers about who are not necessarily permanent residents of wherever they happen to be at the moment.  Do they pay taxes?  To whom?  Do they need to be under the employ of an Agency that arranges "gigs" for them?

[Ghostman]

Because while settings often make a point of mentioning that the PCs are special, any published setting is FILLED with characters who do this kind of thing, and so will be any homebrewed setting that goes on long enough, or is introduced to more than just one group.

I don't agree with this. Nothing really necessitates the existence of NPC "adventurers" at all, let alone in significant numbers. For multiple groups of PCs to become a problem would require that 1) there's a very large number of them (what kind of GM goes through that many groups?), 2) they all exist within the same instance of the setting (rather than different scenarios/campaigns being treated as alternative timelines) and 3) ALL of these groups act within the same, relatively small geographic area.

Therefore we have to assume that there are at least a measurable number of adventurers about who are not necessarily permanent residents of wherever they happen to be at the moment.  Do they pay taxes?  To whom?  Do they need to be under the employ of an Agency that arranges "gigs" for them?

In typical premodern settings taxation would prolly be based on real estate, agricultural produce and shipments of trade goods. That said, if characters that are effectively outsiders to society suddenly show up in town toting large quantities of treasure of uncertain origins, they shouldn't be surprised if a local bigwig simply decides to seize that wealth by whatever excuse he can come up with. Probably something along the lines of "they're obviously bandits/grave-robbers/infidels/sorcerers." At the very least they'd become tempting targets for theft and mugging.

[Seraph]

Because while settings often make a point of mentioning that the PCs are special, any published setting is FILLED with characters who do this kind of thing, and so will be any homebrewed setting that goes on long enough, or is introduced to more than just one group.

I don't agree with this. Nothing really necessitates the existence of NPC "adventurers" at all, let alone in significant numbers. For multiple groups of PCs to become a problem would require that 1) there's a very large number of them (what kind of GM goes through that many groups?), 2) they all exist within the same instance of the setting (rather than different scenarios/campaigns being treated as alternative timelines) and 3) ALL of these groups act within the same, relatively small geographic area.

Outside of MMOs, "instances" feel like a really weird thing to assume about a setting.  I understand that other people's games shouldn't necessarily affect yours, but using, say, Forgotten Realms as an example, the setting is so chock full of NPCs who regularly go on their own adventures (Elminster, Drizzt, etc.) that saying that the group of PCs are the only ones going on adventures is simply ludicrous.  Now, not all settings are Faerun, but my point is that adventurers in RPG settings by nature of this being a game, feel commonplace.   

[LordVreeg]

I'm at work, during my crazy season.
So this will be brief

shoe-horning logic onto a fantasy setting is hard.  Most books and settings from books have huge logical holes that are, at best, unexplained.  Fantasy Game settings are worse, because of the same tropes being square-pegged into the round hole of someone else's new idea. I harp pretty constantly on the need for the game system to match the setting played, but part of this is based on trying to create more internal logic.

Because internal logic is one of the things that creates verisimilitude and allows the PCS to immerse better.  The less logical the setting feels, the less 'real' it feels.   

I played a lot of old school games.  I enjoy the feel and zen of them.  But one of the reasons I got jarred out of them was Greyhawk.  The Earth-1 (or Two, depending on who you ask) of D&D, and certainly of AD&D.  Anyone remember the Gazetteer, with the breakdowns of each country and province?  Every one was ruled by some high level person....so the game system had decided that personal power, as determined by level, was a huge factor in the political/social structure.

Adventuring, also logically, now became a means to political power.  The listings of each type of government made no sense...they could list a country as a Monarchy, but how does a prince go out and get (within the lexicon of the rules) a few hundred thousand experience points adventuring?  And what also followed was that other positions and structures would also be filled the same way, and that there was actually a 'character level = social level' dynamic....

[Seraph]

Every one was ruled by some high level person....so the game system had decided that personal power, as determined by level, was a huge factor in the political/social structure.

Adventuring, also logically, now became a means to political power.  The listings of each type of government made no sense...they could list a country as a Monarchy, but how does a prince go out and get (within the lexicon of the rules) a few hundred thousand experience points adventuring?  And what also followed was that other positions and structures would also be filled the same way, and that there was actually a 'character level = social level' dynamic....

Perhaps these kingdoms don't require that a prince's time be rigidly scheduled, or values honorable deeds over etiquette and diplomacy and so forth, which allows the prince the time to go adventuring (and gain the relevant experience).  Or perhaps they are fond of tourneys, and host gatherings of the finest knights across many lands, and he earns his experience that way.  Or since hunting was a common royal or noble practice, perhaps in a fantasy setting they hunt some of the bizarre and powerful monsters fantasy RPGs are so replete with.

All that said, the idea of a country having to be ruled by a high-level character is at its core a very primitive method of choosing rulers--rather like rams butting heads. 

[Llum]

All that said, the idea of a country having to be ruled by a high-level character is at its core a very primitive method of choosing rulers--rather like rams butting heads.

There is literally no way someone could hold a kingdom unless he can match other people who would take it from him. King Noble 3/Warrior 2 is going to get wrecked by anyone over 7th level. If people can get to 20th level, they are literally gods as far as people are concerned. It's impossible for a sub-level 10 person to control any kind of territory unless every over level 10 person lets them.  That's not even going in-depth to things like having to have teleportation counter measures, wish-counter measures, stopping a wizard from just blowing your castle up from a huge distance away and other high level magic non-sense. Or things like Lichs or Vampires.

It's like asking why humans became the dominant species on earth, everything else is an animal compared to us. Except normal people are animals/insects to high level PCs (and monsters). There's literally no possible competition.

[Seraph]

All that said, the idea of a country having to be ruled by a high-level character is at its core a very primitive method of choosing rulers--rather like rams butting heads.

There is literally no way someone could hold a kingdom unless he can match other people who would take it from him. King Noble 3/Warrior 2 is going to get wrecked by anyone over 7th level. If people can get to 20th level, they are literally gods as far as people are concerned. It's impossible for a sub-level 10 person to control any kind of territory unless every over level 10 person lets them.  That's not even going in-depth to things like having to have teleportation counter measures, wish-counter measures, stopping a wizard from just blowing your castle up from a huge distance away and other high level magic non-sense. Or things like Lichs or Vampires.

It's like asking why humans became the dominant species on earth, everything else is an animal compared to us. Except normal people are animals/insects to high level PCs (and monsters). There's literally no possible competition.

This is assuming that all conflicts between two nations are settled via single combat between their leaders.  Unless that is a specific feature of the world, they probably aren't.  You also seem to be assuming that a nation is ruled by its highest level character.  I can see what you and Vreeg are saying about that being encouraged by the system, but really, a lot of people (even high-level adventurers) wouldn't WANT to rule, so might very well let someone else handle the business.  As long as the ruler(s) of a nation have access to loyal high-level muscle, their own lower level needn't automatically make their country helpless against one with a higher-level leader. 

[LordVreeg]

All that said, the idea of a country having to be ruled by a high-level character is at its core a very primitive method of choosing rulers--rather like rams butting heads.

There is literally no way someone could hold a kingdom unless he can match other people who would take it from him. King Noble 3/Warrior 2 is going to get wrecked by anyone over 7th level. If people can get to 20th level, they are literally gods as far as people are concerned. It's impossible for a sub-level 10 person to control any kind of territory unless every over level 10 person lets them.  That's not even going in-depth to things like having to have teleportation counter measures, wish-counter measures, stopping a wizard from just blowing your castle up from a huge distance away and other high level magic non-sense. Or things like Lichs or Vampires.

It's like asking why humans became the dominant species on earth, everything else is an animal compared to us. Except normal people are animals/insects to high level PCs (and monsters). There's literally no possible competition.

This is assuming that all conflicts between two nations are settled via single combat between their leaders.  Unless that is a specific feature of the world, they probably aren't.  You also seem to be assuming that a nation is ruled by its highest level character.  I can see what you and Vreeg are saying about that being encouraged by the system, but really, a lot of people (even high-level adventurers) wouldn't WANT to rule, so might very well let someone else handle the business.  As long as the ruler(s) of a nation have access to loyal high-level muscle, their own lower level needn't automatically make their country helpless against one with a higher-level leader. 

No, it's not assuming a single combat.  And we are not assuming that all high level characters want to rule, nor are we assuming that a country is ruled by it's highest level inhabitants.  None of those are necessary for the line of logic we are using (and in fact are something of a set of straw men, to be honest).
It's the direction the campaign and setting will drift to. 

Countries DO go to war to settle things, however.  And If other things are roughly equivalent, the army led by the 17th level warrior and his adventuring group of an 18th level wizard, a 17th level thief and cleric AND THEIR (probable one dozen HENCHMEN will beat the living hell out of the army led by a lower level group.

And while not every high level character wants to rule or lead, the ones that do (and there will be those) have gigantic advantages, especially in a typical D&D game. 

[Steerpike]

How is it that three THOUSAND years after the defeat of Sauron, Middle Earth has virtually no new technology or major changes in political structure?

Well, there are some major political changes in the Third Age.  Lots of invasions.  The division of Arnor.  Angmar forms and is destroyed.  The Hobbits migrate all over the place.  Umbar is destroyed.  The Dwarves abandon and then re-colonize Moria (and then that colony is destroyed).  Erebor is founded and then taken over by Smaug.  And lots of other things.

We actually don't know that much about technological shifts because Tolkien doesn't talk all that much about them or about technology.  Quasi-medieval stasis does seem to be in effect, though.  If anything I'd suggest that Middle Earth "technology"/magic (craft and magic being much the same thing for Tolkien) is in decline.  The Elves are leaving, the Dwarf-realms are dwindling, the glory of Numenor is lost, etc.

[Xathan]

No, it's not assuming a single combat.  And we are not assuming that all high level characters want to rule, nor are we assuming that a country is ruled by it's highest level inhabitants.  None of those are necessary for the line of logic we are using (and in fact are something of a set of straw men, to be honest).
It's the direction the campaign and setting will drift to. 

Countries DO go to war to settle things, however.  And If other things are roughly equivalent, the army led by the 17th level warrior and his adventuring group of an 18th level wizard, a 17th level thief and cleric AND THEIR (probable one dozen HENCHMEN will beat the living hell out of the army led by a lower level group.

And while not every high level character wants to rule or lead, the ones that do (and there will be those) have gigantic advantages, especially in a typical D&D game. 

I think the problem with your assumption is the "If other things are roughly equivalent" problem. Rarely, if ever, are wars fought between roughly equivalent forces. High level characters and their followers can drastically alter the course of a battle, but I think how much so is often overstated, even for full tier casters. But really, the argument that you made is "If all else is equal except for one side having a distinct advantage, the side with the distinct advantage will win."

However, there is no reason lower level leaders couldn't employ higher level characters to counterbalance the high level would-be-leaders. High level characters become just another military asset - a powerful one, but not much more than that. Sort of the ninja stealth bombers of the fantasy world.

[LordVreeg]

The only way one can have this conversation is in Ceteris paribus.  I don't assume the balance is going to be equal, but that one must remove it, since maybe one time the higher level folk will be on one side then the other, but that whichever side they are on has a huge advantage, and that advantage, and the resultant effects, is what we are ultimately discussing.

And while there cpuld be examples of higher level characters following lower level ones, the very rules work against it, with followers and freeholds and temple an guild and grove authority being based on level.  One almost has to write the setting against the rules to do otherwise.

I mean, there is nothing to stop someone from doing as you suggest...but those would end up being exceptions, and the vast majority will be based on the rules.

[Llum]

All that said, the idea of a country having to be ruled by a high-level character is at its core a very primitive method of choosing rulers--rather like rams butting heads.

There is literally no way someone could hold a kingdom unless he can match other people who would take it from him. King Noble 3/Warrior 2 is going to get wrecked by anyone over 7th level. If people can get to 20th level, they are literally gods as far as people are concerned. It's impossible for a sub-level 10 person to control any kind of territory unless every over level 10 person lets them.  That's not even going in-depth to things like having to have teleportation counter measures, wish-counter measures, stopping a wizard from just blowing your castle up from a huge distance away and other high level magic non-sense. Or things like Lichs or Vampires.

It's like asking why humans became the dominant species on earth, everything else is an animal compared to us. Except normal people are animals/insects to high level PCs (and monsters). There's literally no possible competition.

This is assuming that all conflicts between two nations are settled via single combat between their leaders.  Unless that is a specific feature of the world, they probably aren't.  You also seem to be assuming that a nation is ruled by its highest level character.  I can see what you and Vreeg are saying about that being encouraged by the system, but really, a lot of people (even high-level adventurers) wouldn't WANT to rule, so might very well let someone else handle the business.  As long as the ruler(s) of a nation have access to loyal high-level muscle, their own lower level needn't automatically make their country helpless against one with a higher-level leader.  

As Vreeg has stated, it assumes none of the things you are implying. If a low-level person is ruling a country, he is doing so because he ether has 1. high-level protection 2. high-level people who work for him. Essentially low level rulers are at the sufferance of high level people, they rule by proxy. All it takes is a single high level person to decide to oust the low level and that person is gone.

Let's put it this way, let's say that once you hit level 15 you're given a nuclear missile. Who holds power in that situation? High level characters.

[Steerpike]

There is literally no way someone could hold a kingdom unless he can match other people who would take it from him. King Noble 3/Warrior 2 is going to get wrecked by anyone over 7th level. If people can get to 20th level, they are literally gods as far as people are concerned. It's impossible for a sub-level 10 person to control any kind of territory unless every over level 10 person lets them.  That's not even going in-depth to things like having to have teleportation counter measures, wish-counter measures, stopping a wizard from just blowing your castle up from a huge distance away and other high level magic non-sense.

Very interesting topic of debate.

I'd suggest that a lot of this depends on the specifics of:

(a) The precise system in question and how magic is handled.
(b) The number of high level characters present.

Here's the thing, though: even a very high level character can't actually rule a territory for any length of time unless they have major support from a large political and/or military body.  They might be able to kill the reigning ruler and wreak serious havoc, but they can't rule on their own:  they'll need administrators, generals, ministers, and the rest of the political apparatus, plus an army (maybe undead could work...).  It's possible, I suppose, that they could hold an entire realm hostage with their powers, but even then they've really got to be watching their back all the time.  They're going to need mechanisms in place that aren't tied to their personal prowess to keep everything working for them to maintain their power.

There are also lots of examples in history of rulers who were/are completely incompetent or incapable of rule who nonetheless remained technical rulers despite their utter inability to functionally rule.  The [ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_eral]Regency in England[/url] comes to mind.  Not that such things necessarily invalidate your points, but they're worth considering.