What if the earth was a DnD world?

[LoA]

So I've been watching videos on WW1 recently, and I still can't get my head around this stinking war.... I understand that when the Archduke of Austria-Hungary was assassinated by radical Serbs, Serbia and Austria were about ready to tear into each other, but in the process of trying to declare war on each other, they set off a number of treaties and then the rest of Europe wound up going to war with itself. I know I'm butchering what is a very interesting piece of history, but it's difficult to wrap your head around the diplomatic crap storm that was the dawn of WW1..

This turned me back to my great love of the Leviathan trilogy by Scott Westerfield, and I began having devious thoughts: What if WW1 was fought with medieval technology? What if the earth never industrialized or discovered steam power? Then it just sort of dawned on me. What if the Earth was a dnd world? I know Shadowrun exists, but I mean what if the earth from the very beginning was a dnd world where dwarves, elves, etc evolved right along side humans, and what if dragons existed and orcs existed and all of that jazz? How would earth be different? Who would rule what? Would the worlds history still play out basically the same way? Or would history be changed forever?

This idea just seemed to interesting to not share, and someone probably has had the same thought as I have.

[Steerpike]

I think Eberron has been described as a sort of post WWI fantasy. Lord of the Rings, as many have noted, resembles WWII on several levels, with the great war of yore hovering in the background and the old foe (Sauron/Germany) not quite as defeated as everyone had thought, but regathering their forces and influence.

That said, the thing about WWI and industrialization is that you can't really have the former without the latter. The whole form of WWI - trench warfare, nation states, attrition, submarine and air warfare, global war - is totally predicated on industrial technology. The rhythms of the war were all technologically determined; without machine guns and advanced small arms you don't need to hunker for days and days in trenches. Sure in medieval warfare you had sieges, but those are very different from trenches. And you gotta remember that  the medieval period is much more organized around noble families and lineages, rivalries between dynasties, princes, etc, than it is around anything like the modern nation state.

One could posit a world where magic has facilitated those things, though, with wizardly mortars, golems in place of tanks, wands for machine guns, etc.

[LoA]

I think Eberron has been described as a sort of post WWI fantasy. Lord of the Rings, as many have noted, resembles WWII on several levels, with the great war of yore hovering in the background and the old foe (Sauron/Germany) not quite as defeated as everyone had thought, but regathering their forces and influence.

That said, the thing about WWI and industrialization is that you can't really have the former without the latter. The whole form of WWI - trench warfare, nation states, attrition, submarine and air warfare, global war - is totally predicated on industrial technology. The rhythms of the war were all technologically determined; without machine guns and advanced small arms you don't need to hunker for days and days in trenches. Sure in medieval warfare you had sieges, but those are very different from trenches. And you gotta remember that  the medieval period is much more organized around noble families and lineages, rivalries between dynasties, princes, etc, than it is around anything like the modern nation state.

One could posit a world where magic has facilitated those things, though, with wizardly mortars, golems in place of tanks, wands for machine guns, etc.

Yeah, I'm a huge Eberron fan so I was aware of the parallels, but I was thinking more on a global history type scale. But this is interesting. Why are magitech settings so hard to pull of mechanically?

[sparkletwist]

One could posit a world where magic has facilitated those things, though, with wizardly mortars, golems in place of tanks, wands for machine guns, etc.

It should also be noted that D&D magic (at least as presented in 3.x and Pathfinder) is really powerful, and these kind of technomagical innovations are pretty much a logical consequence of using magic to its full effect. It should also also be noted that is something that most settings that use anything resembling standard D&D rules handwave quite thoroughly.

On the other hand, even in a setting full of handwavium, it least it gives some mechanical weight to the trope of the "ancient empire where everything was awesome and they had way better stuff than we'll ever have." They just knew how to use magic to its full effect back then.

[Ghostman]

You could turn the process of worldbuilding into a game exploring this very question. Start out with a world at the rear end of stone age, with the discovery of magic just then taking place (probably NOT by all races at the same time). Players could play the role of meddling gods (or perhaps intermediary beings, similar to angels or demons) manipulating the development of arising civilizations. Take a step back from minutiae and focus on grand sweeping trends of history; decades or centuries might pass by with each turn. Eventually you'll arrive at your "twentieth century" counterpart, though it'll prolly be unrecognizable by then.

[Steerpike]

It should also be noted that D&D magic (at least as presented in 3.x and Pathfinder) is really powerful, and these kind of technomagical innovations are pretty much a logical consequence of using magic to its full effect. It should also also be noted that is something that most settings that use anything resembling standard D&D rules handwave quite thoroughly.

I agree... if the number of spellcasters presented in the demographic charts is upheld and things like magical/clerical education are well-established. One could certainly imagine worlds, though, where magic is the same system but there are radically fewer magic-users and even fewer of mid-to-high level - where, for example, the number of people with PC classes is truly tiny, or where there's only one magic user for every hundred thousand people, etc. There might be pockets of magic-enabled utopia, but the world as a whole might not be especially magically/technologically advanced.

You could turn the process of worldbuilding into a game exploring this very question. Start out with a world at the rear end of stone age, with the discovery of magic just then taking place (probably NOT by all races at the same time). Players could play the role of meddling gods (or perhaps intermediary beings, similar to angels or demons) manipulating the development of arising civilizations. Take a step back from minutiae and focus on grand sweeping trends of history; decades or centuries might pass by with each turn. Eventually you'll arrive at your "twentieth century" counterpart, though it'll prolly be unrecognizable by then.

This is a cool idea... I feel like it'd work super well as a boardgame/forum-game.

[Xeviat]

3E magic item creation allows for some very interesting magic items that wouldn't be super useful for adventurers, but would be incredibly useful for common folk. This is definitely a thought exercise I like to play with, and one I've had to avoid by simply saying "the D&D rules stand for a brief snapshot in time and do not represent the evolution of the world".

For instance, maybe high level spells are new. Maybe cantrips (if you're playing Pathfinder, 4E, or 5E, where cantrips are at-will) started out limited but have recently become unlimited based on the growth of magical "technology".

Also, how "realistic" do you want monsters to be? How much does a dragon need to eat, and how many dragons can the world support?

[Hibou]

3E magic item creation allows for some very interesting magic items that wouldn't be super useful for adventurers, but would be incredibly useful for common folk. This is definitely a thought exercise I like to play with, and one I've had to avoid by simply saying "the D&D rules stand for a brief snapshot in time and do not represent the evolution of the world".

For instance, maybe high level spells are new. Maybe cantrips (if you're playing Pathfinder, 4E, or 5E, where cantrips are at-will) started out limited but have recently become unlimited based on the growth of magical "technology".

Also, how "realistic" do you want monsters to be? How much does a dragon need to eat, and how many dragons can the world support?

This bit about dragons sticks out most prominently to me. Forget the advanced magic that humans/elves/dwarves/etc. could wield; put even a few dozen dragons in Europe in the Stone Age and I'd be very surprised if they didn't come to complete dominance. This is completely ignoring numerous other powerful monsters that would likely be lurking around.

[Xeviat]

3E magic item creation allows for some very interesting magic items that wouldn't be super useful for adventurers, but would be incredibly useful for common folk. This is definitely a thought exercise I like to play with, and one I've had to avoid by simply saying "the D&D rules stand for a brief snapshot in time and do not represent the evolution of the world".

For instance, maybe high level spells are new. Maybe cantrips (if you're playing Pathfinder, 4E, or 5E, where cantrips are at-will) started out limited but have recently become unlimited based on the growth of magical "technology".

Also, how "realistic" do you want monsters to be? How much does a dragon need to eat, and how many dragons can the world support?

This bit about dragons sticks out most prominently to me. Forget the advanced magic that humans/elves/dwarves/etc. could wield; put even a few dozen dragons in Europe in the Stone Age and I'd be very surprised if they didn't come to complete dominance. This is completely ignoring numerous other powerful monsters that would likely be lurking around.

Seriously. Lets check out what an Ancient Red Dragon would look like in the real world.

AC 22; 1st level fighters have an attack bonus of +5, so it can be hit, but it's very difficult.
HP: 546; this will matter more later.
Speed: 80 ft fly

Intelligence: 18

Damage Immunities: Fire (I was momentarily worried that they were going to be immune to mundane weapons).
Senses: Blindsight 60 ft, Darkvision 120 (darkvision in this edition turns heavy obscurement from shadows into light obscurement, so not perfect).
Legendary Resistance 3/day: if the dragon fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.

Multiattack: Frightful Presence, bite, two claws.

Frightful Presence: DC 21 Wisdom save or be frightened for one minute, save to end at the end of each turn, a successful save makes you immune for 24 hours.

Bite: +17 to hit, 21 piercing and 14 fire damage.
Claw: +17 to hit, 17 slashing.

Breath Weapon: Recharges 1/3rd of rounds, 90 ft. cone, DC 24 Dex save for half, 91 damage.

Legendary Actions (this is what "solos" get in this edition): 3 per round, at the end of another creature's turn. These are things like free perception checks to search for hidden creatures, free tail atacks (deal slightly better damage than the claws and with greater reach), or a wing attack that lets the damage and knock multiple foes prone and lets them fly a short distance.

Now, all of those numbers are meaningless without some baselines.

Lets first imagine that we're going with an old idea in 3rd Edition D&D that people in the real world don't exceed 6th level (this was based on low cr challenges didn't give xp anymore, and "surviving" the winter was considered a CR 1/2 challenge, I believe). It also means that 20 is the highest an ability score could possibly reach, and that's for the tiny fraction of the populous that started with an 18 in an attack score.

So, the best damage someone could hope to do with a longbow would be 1d8+5 x2, with an attack bonus of +8. Standard infantry would probably be using heavy crossbows for 1d10+2 or +3 with an attack bonus of +4 or +5.

A ballista has AC 15 and 50 hp. It takes one action to load, one action to aim, and one action to fire; I'm assuming multiple people can work together. It has a +6 bonus to hit and deals 16 damage (3d10). The dragon can destroy it easily with one puff of its breath.

A mangonel has AC 15 and 100 hp. It takes two actions to load, two to aim, and one to fire, and attacks with +5 to hit and deals 27 (5d10) damage.

A trebuchet has AC 15 and 150 hp. It takes two actions to load, two to aim, and one to fire, and attacks with +5 to hit and deals 44 (8d10) damage.

The DMG is rather sparse on object HP for really big objects. It gives HP up to large objects (a large resilient object has 27 hp), but then says to track larger objects as multiple large pieces put together. But then the huge trebuchet has 150 hp ... It does say that certain objects should have resistance (take half damage) or even immunity to certain damage types (all objects are immune to poison and psychic, for instance). Objects can also have damage thresholds, ignoring damage below a certain value. They don't suggest how much hp something like a castle wall should have. Simply treating it as multiple large-sized sections of 27 hp, even with resistance to all damage (heat can melt stone, but it has to be rediculous), the dragon should be able to lay waste to a castle rather quickly.

At 1d10+2 to 1d8+5 (7.5 to 9.5), it's going to take 64 hits to take down the dragon; less with siege weapons, but those take multiple people to aim so their actions are probably better spent attacking (though siege weapons have larger range and can be manned partially by untrained conscripts). Even at 32 hits, assuming the dragon leaves when it reaches half hp (a time when the books say they actually look hurt from battle), they could do some serious damage. Since they'll heal all of their damage with a good night's rest, it won't be long before a dragon takes out every stronghold around.

Now, this dragon is also 801+ years old. Would they even have let civilization get to the point of building castles? If metallic dragons are around, maybe they keep the chromatics in check, but I see no way this isn't going to devolve to metallic dragon kings overseeing the frail humanoids.

The book doesn't say how much they weigh, but each size category is about a doubling of height, so it should be about a x8 increase in weight. Assuming a typical medium creature is 150 pounds, and x8ing three times, I get about 38 tons for the size of a Gargantuan dragon. A blue whale is 200 tons, and an argentinosaurus was 80 to 100 tons, so that size isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility, but it's still going to eat a lot of food.

XKCD to the rescue! A T-Rex weighs 9 tons and is estimated to require 40,000 calories a day. So the dragon is 4 times larger, and would require 160,000 calories a day. ( http://what-if.xkcd.com/78/ ) Apparently, an average human contains 110,000 calories, so a dragon could survive on about 10 humans a week, or a lot less of larger animals; a horse weighs about 6 times more than a person, so they'd be 660,000 calories each and would sustain a dragon for 4 days.

Ah, reptilian metabolism helps out. Lets not worry about extra energy needed for flight (hydrogen filled!) or where they get the energy for their breath weapons (magic nuclear fission!). But it seems a dragon could survive reasonably well in the world ... now I want to work on a big food web and figure out how many dragons would exist on the world ...

[Steerpike]

It seems to me that whether dragons would dominate an early proto-civilization depends partly on how many Sorcerers and Druids your stone age society has.

The other question, really, is why a dragon would want to dominate humanoid civilization, at least in any kind of political sense. Since people aren't that big a threat, the dragon can go out and eat as many people/livestock it wants, and governance is an enormous headache, other than sheer megalomania there doesn't seem much of a reason to seize power. Demand tribute and sacrifices, sure, but actually rule? Why bother?

[Hibou]

It seems to me that whether dragons would dominate an early proto-civilization depends partly on how many Sorcerers and Druids your stone age society has.

The other question, really, is why a dragon would want to dominate humanoid civilization, at least in any kind of political sense. Since people aren't that big a threat, the dragon can go out and eat as many people/livestock it wants, and governance is an enormous headache, other than sheer megalomania there doesn't seem much of a reason to seize power. Demand tribute and sacrifices, sure, but actually rule? Why bother?

My perspective isn't so much that the dragons specifically would try and dominate the humanoid populations, but the presence of dragons and so many other powerful supernatural creatures would take survival to a whole other level. In our world we dealt with changing seasons, violent weather, territorial carnivores and migrating food sources, but adding anything other than spellcasting itself in my mind favors the monster. I guess a lot of it depends on exactly what you include, and how many of the monsters are one-offs vs full species. To me, if you went through a Monster Manual and picked out 12-24 creatures as the standard cadre of supernaturals for your world, no matter which ones you get, you're going to have a group of beasts that will make it very hard for humanoids to gain a foothold, unless you change the way that they grow as well.

For example, let's say I choose a creature from each CR from 1-20, assuming that dragons are automatically in the mix and that undead are also "guaranteed". None of the creatures I pick, or the dragons/undead have to exist in equal numbers (you'd hope that the stronger ones were rarer somehow). You've got a massive list of creatures to choose from, many of which start to get into the weirder power ranges if you pick elementals, aberrations and some special monstrous humanoids like trolls.

I realize this is getting rather pedantic, but I sincerely believe that in such a situation, unless you very carefully select the types and numbers of creatures present in the world (or at least limit their access in the case of types from other planes), humanoids will have very difficult challenges to deal with from the beginning. I could see them in a setting where they're mostly all stuck as nomads, able to fend off less powerful creatures in groups until some powerful spellcasters arise. It would make for a pretty cool setting premise, but part of me thinks that the territorial dragons and other beasties would make it difficult for people to settle down and develop large agricultural bases as humans once did.

[sparkletwist]

I also don't want to get too pedantic, or turn this into an "edition war," but I think any analysis of the capabilities of dragons in a "realistic D&D world" has to be prefixed with what edition of D&D that you're doing the analysis for, because this will produce very different results. For example, while I'm glad to see that a village of peasants no longer stands a reasonable chance of kicking a 5e dragon's ass (like in the playtests) a decently large and well-organized army of conscripts can still kill the 5e dragon with acceptable losses, while conscripts are just fodder for a 3e/PF dragon of comparable age and size and only big time heroes would stand a chance. So which set of numbers you use depends on what feel you want-- a more "realistic" and gritty sort of low fantasy, or epic high fantasy where heroism wins the day-- and that, of course, shapes the outcomes.

[Xeviat]

If we're talking about the "real world" I'd only assume we mean a gritty world. When I get home, I'll run some test encounters and see just how many crossbow wielding conscripts it would take to kill a dragon, and with what losses. Considering how long it takes a dragon to reach that age, and I assume their slow reproductive cycle, there could be a time in the past where humans were able to rally and put a dent in the dragon population.

But I still think Metallics would "have to" join with humans to protect them, either through humans stealing eggs and raising the dragons with them, or simply because they're largely benevolent and are at odds with dragons. As an army or another drafon is the only thing a dragon would have to fear, I assume some of the chromatics would preemptive strike the humans just like the humans would them.

[Steerpike]

My perspective isn't so much that the dragons specifically would try and dominate the humanoid populations, but the presence of dragons and so many other powerful supernatural creatures would take survival to a whole other level.

This is a very good point.

If we're talking about the assumptions of D&D being played out fully, of course, then interventionist gods should be factored in as well, as should creatures like Celestials and other capital G Good creatures that might well act as benefactors for humanoid species.

A lot of this comes down to the rarity and ecology of monsters, which the RAW don't really detail. Even if everything in the Monster Manual is accepted as writ, there's a lot of ambiguity about these things. If monsters are just like big/weird animals that breed and exist in ecological relation to one another, then humanoids are in big trouble. If they're more like solitary, horrible abominations of the sort you tend to see in say, horror movies or mythology, it might not be so bad on an ecological level. Like hydras, for example. If hydras are basically polycephalic dinosaurs they're going to be major predators in their ecosystem, probably apex predators, and bad news for humanoids. But if they're more like the ancient Greek Lernaean Hydra, which is just one monster that occasionally emerges from its lonely cave to harass a small region, that's a very different story.

[Polycarp]

Are D&D statblocks actually useful for answering the original question of "what if X and Y existed in the real world?"  Considering that no ruleset of D&D is remotely compatible with actual physics, assuming that a stat block made in a D&D ruleset could be remotely compatible with actual ecology seems much too far of a stretch.  D&D stats are intended to make monsters fight-able by comparatively statted heroes, not to explain how a creature actually functions in an ecology or interacts with physical forces.

I mean, a Giant Leech is intended to be a big gross thing that gives you a jungle random encounter, and its abilities are intended to let you fight it.  I doubt the question of whether a man-sized leech could actually consume enough blood to maintain its own metabolism was seriously considered by the authors of the 2nd ed MM.  Likewise, a dragon's stats in every edition are intended to provide level-appropriate encounters within the D&D game, and only that.

"How would a large flying reptile capable of breathing fire fit into real world ecology" seems like a reasonable (if fantastical) question, but I doubt hit points and damage dice are actually going to be useful in answering it.  After you get the basic sketch of the animal, it seems like you might as well just throw the MM into the trash.