The omissions in Core D&D the treatment of ordinary NPC matters in OOTS.

[Reddish Mage]

D&D Core rules can be accused of being very unclear about just about everything except for combat, which it provides very detailed rules. I made a short list of some of the issues I recall coming up in-game or in conceiving of the games that are not addressed:

1) How the economy works including such basics as:

A) what the wealth and prospects of a typical inhabitant of a town or farming community
B) how nobility or wealthy merchant differ
C) Just how wealthy are adventurers anyway?
D) How do I price things that aren't on the price list?
Core gives you guidelines that are very quick, a bit thin, and generally misunderstood on this subject.

Answer: except (d) the answers are in the PHB and DMG but taken strictly it means adventurers are fantastically wealthy early on, and commoners, and ordinary craftspeople are dirt poor (soldiers are little better), especially next to wealthy people.

Similarly for such things as: What level do I find NPCs in a typical town, castle, capital, etc? How much do typical NPCs of different social strata know about their world and its creatures and inhabitants (not to mention alignments, the planes, basic laws of magic and other such details)?

Answer: Very unclear to me. I imagine wide-spread ignorance of such details seems to fit best, but the tendency of the players and DM would be towards normalizing the knowledge the players already possess.


OOTS abuses all these thing to extremes: so that we find NPCs in Greysky city are mainly level appropriate for Haley. Or that a gold piece in OOTS is worth about $1 US. The NPCs seem to potentially know about anything including the game mechanics. The Giant suggested that maybe you actually could find high-level adventurers by going to your nearest bar as Tarquin suggested. However, OOTS does this as purposeful parody. I've seen such violations at the gaming table within straightforward serious games.

My Questions are? Can we expand the list of very vague treatments in Core (please exclude alignment lest we become another one of those threads)? Is this a weakness in D&D? How do the NPCs in your worlds appear (in relative wealth, education, knowledge and opportunity) and how do they treat adventurers? Is there a better and worse way to treat normal NPCs?

I will note, my opinion is that the tendency in D&D supplements is towards greater availability of high level NPCs, and magic, and money, and knowledge.

[hamishspence]

The DMG does allow you to generate NPCs for various sized communities- from the tables you can work out the average level of the highest level NPCs of particular classes, at least.

[veti]

I'd say these are questions about the setting - the game world - not the rules. The answers are likely to be quite different for Greyhawk vs Forgotten Realms vs Ravenloft, never mind the approximately 400,000 homebrewed worlds out there.

D&D "core" tries hard to be all things to all players, which means it often finds itself covering material that, properly speaking, are world-building questions. For instance, everything it says about the outer planes and what lives there - this is quite likely to vary widely from one campaign to another. I don't think anyone would claim that "D&D rules" are being broken if, say, the dwarves in one campaign don't have a pathological racist hatred of goblins - even though the core rules say they do.

[AKA_Bait]

I would actually say that anything that is not combat related is given purposefully vague treatment in CORE. I agree with Veti that most of the issues raised relate to the setting, not to the core mechanics of the game. In the basic books WotC doesn't want to tie up setting details too much, if only so that they have more wiggle room to sell splatbooks and other campaign setting books.

As for the tendency to have higher level NPCs be around in games, I think that is probably true partly because DMs need to challenge their PCs and some DMs have trouble crafting plot hooks that don't have both stick and carrot for their players. That said, the availability of higher level NPCs to the PCs in a given setting doesn't have to represent the real demographics of that setting. If you think of the PCs as the cultural equivalent of modern day celebrities or the super rich, it makes some sense that those they interact with would be similarly situated and not representative of the population at large. In many of my homebrew settings most commoners are terrified of PCs because of the power discrepancy there. For example, even a low level Wizard can shoot enough fire out of his hands to roast a commoner alive in under twenty seconds. Higher level adventurers also would tend to stand out because of the quality of their gear, making them somewhat easy to avoid.

Edit: Also, as a suggestion to the OP, this thread might be better suited for the 3.5 forum than the OotS forum. I suspect it would get more input there.

[UnicornBandit]

From my experience DMing I've concluded that time spent thinking about the rules of the world would be better spent imagining details the PCs will actually see. It's easier to just do a gut check for if something would break immersion. Or, to make the world be what is convenient for the game, and then make up an explanation to justify it. :)

[F.Harr]

D&D Core rules can be accused of being very unclear about just about everything except for combat, which it provides very detailed rules. I made a short list of some of the issues I recall coming up in-game or in conceiving of the games that are not addressed:

1) How the economy works including such basics as:

A) what the wealth and prospects of a typical inhabitant of a town or farming community
B) how nobility or wealthy merchant differ
C) Just how wealthy are adventurers anyway?
D) How do I price things that aren't on the price list?
Core gives you guidelines that are very quick, a bit thin, and generally misunderstood on this subject.



I think this is an outgrowth of the fact that the game was written by and for people who wanted to simulate beating things up rather than economics.

[Gorm_the_DBA]

I think this is an outgrowth of the fact that the game was written by and for people who wanted to simulate beating things up rather than economics.

This.

Recall, if you will, that the original D&D was descended from a set of miniatures warfare rules (a system called "Chainmail"), because someone had the idea "Hey, what if instead of having 1000 on 1000, it was a party of 4-6 taking on the challenges of..."

So combat came first, role playing came later. almost as an afterthought.

[AKA_Bait]

This.

Recall, if you will, that the original D&D was descended from a set of miniatures warfare rules (a system called "Chainmail"), because someone had the idea "Hey, what if instead of having 1000 on 1000, it was a party of 4-6 taking on the challenges of..."

So combat came first, role playing came later. almost as an afterthought.

Although this is true, I don't think it matters quite as much as it is sometimes made out to. We should remember that the game has gone through half a dozen new editions over forty years, including totally revamped combat systems, since Chainmail.

[King of Nowhere]

This.

Recall, if you will, that the original D&D was descended from a set of miniatures warfare rules (a system called "Chainmail"), because someone had the idea "Hey, what if instead of having 1000 on 1000, it was a party of 4-6 taking on the challenges of..."

So combat came first, role playing came later. almost as an afterthought.
roleplaying came when those same guys asked themselves "Hey, what if instead of having a party of 4-6 taking on the challenges of... we also pretended to be the guys in that party?"

Anyway, I agree that it all depends on the setting. It is possible to build worlkds were higher level npcs are more or less common, where magic is more or less diffused, where the common people is more or less well-to-do... as a guy who likes worldbuilding, I like to take some basic premises and follow the implications.

The only meaningful contribution I can apport otherwise is that a gp is approximately worth 50 euros at current day prices. common people gain one gp per month, which is in line with what we expect from a preindustrial society (remember than even in our present day there are many third world countries with people living with one dollar per day, which would be less than 1gp/month). also the prices of common goods are generally ok with this conversion.
so a high level adventurer's fortune is worth a few tens of millions of euros at current rates. not going to challenge bill gates, but rich enough.

[EyethatBinds]

Anything not listed in the rule books is free reign for the GM to arbitrate. If you want a really detailed economic system, you're free to do so. It won't be too simple in a world that gold can be easily found in the corpses of wolves, but when you make a decision WRITE IT DOWN. Consistency of your world is often more important than realism.

You can have a telescope cost 1000gp, or you can have them be a simple tool that costs 10gp, just make sure you decide which changes you're making. A player is often more upset that prices keep changing in the same shops than the realism of making bat guano smaller than a dime turn into a sphere of flaming death 30 feet across.

If you feel a rule need be made though, Keep It Simple Stupid.

[KillianHawkeye]

I would agree that a lot of those things being omitted isn't a bug, it's a feature.

[Liliet]

Although it would be very nice of them to publish some tips on world-building, like how medieval economy works and how much ground is covered with fields around one village. I had to google all this info when building my own setting, and I found some articles written specifically for DnD and similar games... and they were not by WotC )=

[Everyl]

Although it would be very nice of them to publish some tips on world-building, like how medieval economy works and how much ground is covered with fields around one village. I had to google all this info when building my own setting, and I found some articles written specifically for DnD and similar games... and they were not by WotC )=

Out of curiosity, would you happen to have any of those links on hand to share anymore?

[Jay R]

Anything not listed in the rule books is free reign for the GM to arbitrate.

Yup. Just like anything that is listed in the rule books.

[Having said that, I agree about the strong difference between the two.]

[King of Nowhere]

Although it would be very nice of them to publish some tips on world-building, like how medieval economy works and how much ground is covered with fields around one village. I had to google all this info when building my own setting, and I found some articles written specifically for DnD and similar games... and they were not by WotC )=

Actuallly, I amm happier with that stuff being unpublished.
Because, if it was actually published, then it would be seen as "rules". and it would kill a lot of the fun in worldbuilding, as there would likely be some rule-nazi always complaining that your worldbuilding is against the rules.
As for gooogling it, it can certainly be a start. however, especially if you're working with a high magic world, you have to take into account how the specifics of fantasy interfere with anything.
Are spells regularly used to increase the fields productivity? are undead or constructs regularly used as workforce? are the goblin raids burning enough fields to affect food production significantly? How many high level people are out there and how they affect the economy? can a bank exist, or as soon as they put together a few thousands gp sone high level thief is likely to steal that all? do they have to charge more to take into account that risk? How are resurrections affecting the global market of diamonds?
All those things are likely to affect significantly the answer, so there can be drastic changes to what happened in real world.

For example, while in the real world you cannot grow a civilization in a cave, for my world I decided that there are plants that feed not on sunlight, but on the background magic field, and that's how dwarves and goblins can live in caves without having massive fields outside (useful when outside is no place for fields, like for example if outside is a big mountain range. Really, I never understood how the dwarves in Moria were supposed to get food; I doubt they had the technology to import it all from thousands of kilometers away...).

[Taelas]

I don't see the problem regarding wealth and such. Those rules do exist. Yes, adventurers quickly become unfathomably wealthy compared to ordinary commoners... but considering that a) most adventurers die, and b) being an adventurer requires very specialized training, it's not like commoners can just up and decide to be an adventurer.

Relying on the Profession skill to be your main breadwinner is not a very smart choice.

The average commoner really doesn't know anything about any of those details. They are uneducated in general.

The nobility isn't much better. They know a good bit more, but it is very specialized knowledge. Knowledge (nobility and royalty), (history), (nature), (local), and depending on the importance of it, (religion).

The middle class likely have the broadest education. Merchants, craftsmen, clergy, scholars... this is where truly specialized knowledge comes in.

[veti]

I don't see the problem regarding wealth and such. Those rules do exist. Yes, adventurers quickly become unfathomably wealthy compared to ordinary commoners... but considering that a) most adventurers die, and b) being an adventurer requires very specialized training, it's not like commoners can just up and decide to be an adventurer.

Actually, most adventurers don't seem to die. Aren't there substantial parts of the DMG devoted to making sure that doesn't happen?

As for "requires very specialised training" - does it? Of the six members of OOTS, as far as we know, only Roy went to college with a view to becoming an adventurer. Haley, Vaarsuvius and Durkon never intended to become adventurers. Elan "cruised through a few weeks of bard camp (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html)". Belkar - well, we don't know, but my guess is that he drifted into it.


Relying on the Profession skill to be your main breadwinner is not a very smart choice.

Depends on the world. I've played in more than one party where, although we may have been laden down with theoretically-valuable magic items and priceless artifacts (which nobody wanted to buy), we couldn't actually scrape together enough hard cash to buy a few horses. Having, say, a baker or a prostitute in the party could have been very useful, sometimes.

Adventurers are really quite reliant on a major slice of the economy being devoted to serving them. If "adventurer" is a reasonably common occupation, then that's fine, but it undermines the argument against (basically) pretty much every able-bodied person having a go at it at least once. On the other hand, if "adventurers" are something rare and exotic, it becomes unlikely there will be a Ye Olde Magicke Ytem Shoppe in every moderate-sized town.

[Squark]

Actually, most adventurers don't seem to die. Aren't there substantial parts of the DMG devoted to making sure that doesn't happen?

As for "requires very specialised training" - does it? Of the six members of OOTS, as far as we know, only Roy went to college with a view to becoming an adventurer. Haley, Vaarsuvius and Durkon never intended to become adventurers. Elan "cruised through a few weeks of bard camp (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html)". Belkar - well, we don't know, but my guess is that he drifted into it.It varies by setting, but the general consensus of most campaign settings is that there are a number of adventuring parties active at any one time, and that a sizable portion of those parties ultimately end up failing and dieing. Also, most of the order had some degree of training in their background; Durkon is implied to have worked in the militia, V specializes in a form of magic primarily specializing in blowing things up (Actually, why would anyone who wasn't going to go into adventuring or a military organization specialize in evocation?), Haley was a catburglar who branched out (and learned more about combat during the time in between leaving Greysky and joining the order), and Belkar has drifted through a variety of things. Even Elan had work as a squire/herald (while most of that consisted of screwing things up for the knights he worked for, some of it did still rub off on him. But also, bear in mind he was the least useful member of the order for a while).


Depends on the world. I've played in more than one party where, although we may have been laden down with theoretically-valuable magic items and priceless artifacts (which nobody wanted to buy), we couldn't actually scrape together enough hard cash to buy a few horses. Having, say, a baker or a prostitute in the party could have been very useful, sometimes. Technically, he's referring to how the profession skill, as written, is a lousy way of making money for adventurers. However... Let's see... A family of four is going to be making ~16 gp a week (Parents with 4 ranks in profession take 10, with the kids using aid another, and make 8 gp each), which is enough to put average-quality food on the table every day and still have enough money left over to pay for clothing and the odd replacement tool, provided the local lord's taxes aren't extreme (I'd argue that profession includes a typical tax rate and day-to-day expenses within the process of making the check, but that's just interpetation on my part).


Adventurers are really quite reliant on a major slice of the economy being devoted to serving them. If "adventurer" is a reasonably common occupation, then that's fine, but it undermines the argument against (basically) pretty much every able-bodied person having a go at it at least once. On the other hand, if "adventurers" are something rare and exotic, it becomes unlikely there will be a Ye Olde Magicke Ytem Shoppe in every moderate-sized town.

Technically speaking, there isn't supposed to be a Magic item store in most towns except perhaps in Eberron (Which is lousy with low-mid level spellcasters, meaning the actual industrialization of magic is possible).

[dps]

I would agree that a lot of those things being omitted isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Reminds me of a book I used to have that consisted of reviews of games. It made the comment that DnD even in theory isn't so much a game as a game system, and in practice, it's not even a game system--it's a system for designing a game system.

It's an older book, and what it said probably applies more to earlier versions, but there's still a good bit of truth to it.

[veti]

It varies by setting, but the general consensus of most campaign settings is that there are a number of adventuring parties active at any one time, and that a sizable portion of those parties ultimately end up failing and dieing.

I don't think I buy that "general consensus". It may be true that adventurers have a fairly high mortality rate - they deliberately put themselves in danger, after all. So let's say that's as high as 20% per year, which would be considered pretty terrifying for most professions. That means the average commoner could sign up for a quickie tomb-raid, be back inside the fortnight, and have a 99% chance of survival. That's pretty attractive odds for a young person, for something that can pay off a year's regular earnings.


Also, most of the order had some degree of training in their background; Durkon is implied to have worked in the militia, V specializes in a form of magic primarily specializing in blowing things up (Actually, why would anyone who wasn't going to go into adventuring or a military organization specialize in evocation?), Haley was a catburglar who branched out (and learned more about combat during the time in between leaving Greysky and joining the order), and Belkar has drifted through a variety of things.

But, until they did it, none of them intended to become adventurers. Which reinforces my point, that it doesn't necessarily require dedicated training. Their backgrounds are fairly typical for the sorts of people they are. (Doesn't basically every dwarf serve in the militia? And doesn't V actually state, in so many words, that she'd never thought about adventuring?)


(I'd argue that profession includes a typical tax rate and day-to-day expenses within the process of making the check, but that's just interpetation on my part).

There's unlikely to be such a thing as income or sales tax at this technology level. More likely, there's a quarterly or annual rent due on the house and shop (which goes to the feudal overlord, who holds all the land, either directly or "in trust" for their own lord), and an occasional per-head poll tax levied when the lord feels the need of a top-up. (If the feudal lord doesn't own pretty much all the land, that implies a society that's well on the way to capitalism and industrialisation.)

But yes, most of the time, these taxes, whatever they are, must be within reach of the average income-earning family, because there's no sense in charging taxes that are beyond the reach of most taxpayers. (And if you try, you're setting yourself up for a classic overthrow-the-oppressive-lord scenario.)

More than that, in fact - unless the lord wants to be considered a complete brute, they have to make sure there's some sort of social-security system in place for the elderly, disabled, widows, orphans and other deserving cases.

[Taelas]

Actually, most adventurers don't seem to die. Aren't there substantial parts of the DMG devoted to making sure that doesn't happen?
In any profession, only a few rise to the top. When that profession is about fighting deadly monsters and delving trap-filled dungeons, where any failure will end up resulting in death... I'd say the average adventurer actually dies. The cream of the crop don't, and PCs are, of course, the exception.

I'd say more than half of the number of adventuring parties die undertaking their first few quests, and even more experienced parties will occasionally get into more trouble than they can handle.


As for "requires very specialised training" - does it? Of the six members of OOTS, as far as we know, only Roy went to college with a view to becoming an adventurer. Haley, Vaarsuvius and Durkon never intended to become adventurers. Elan "cruised through a few weeks of bard camp (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html)". Belkar - well, we don't know, but my guess is that he drifted into it.
All of them have specialized training. Elan went to "bard camp", but in actual D&D, it takes anywhere between 1 to 6 years to become a bard.

Especially compared to commoners. A commoner doesn't have any skills worth mentioning that are valuable in a dungeon crawl.


Depends on the world. I've played in more than one party where, although we may have been laden down with theoretically-valuable magic items and priceless artifacts (which nobody wanted to buy), we couldn't actually scrape together enough hard cash to buy a few horses. Having, say, a baker or a prostitute in the party could have been very useful, sometimes.

Adventurers are really quite reliant on a major slice of the economy being devoted to serving them. If "adventurer" is a reasonably common occupation, then that's fine, but it undermines the argument against (basically) pretty much every able-bodied person having a go at it at least once. On the other hand, if "adventurers" are something rare and exotic, it becomes unlikely there will be a Ye Olde Magicke Ytem Shoppe in every moderate-sized town.
If you couldn't convince someone to pay you for your stuff, then that is your failure.

There won't be magic shops in every moderate-sized town, no, but there will be town guards, whom you may be able to convince in investing in some of your excess arms and armor. You can try temples, or powerfully rich individuals, or the criminal underworld.

It is also rare that 100% of your loot comes in the form of magical items. Coins, valuable art pieces, jewels, etc. are usually part and parcel of any treasure.

[Reddish Mage]

Yes, adventurers quickly become unfathomably wealthy compared to ordinary commoners... but considering that a) most adventurers die

Statistics on survival rates on NPC adventurers are one of the many omissions from Core D&D. However, I would take it that adventuring groups (even of low level) are fairly uncommon and that the profession on its face seems way too dangerous for your average commoner. Also, there is no expectation outside of Stickverse that encounters be level-appropriate. I think Veti's 99% of survival per adventure for a out of place commoner is way too high.

Of course, forming parties in taverns and running through established modes of adventuring is common in MMORPGs and perhaps in some modules and tables. There's also mention of adventuring parties as an established political force to be catered to in some books I've read (I think the AD&D rules cyclopedia suggested it as the reason for thieves guilds existence).



Relying on the Profession skill to be your main breadwinner is not a very smart choice.


Actually the profession skill produces fantastic dividends when you consider most services can be purchased at less than a gold a day! Unskilled labor is a mere silver piece! I think the Profession skill is way out of whack with the service price list (and the lifestyle upkeep costs, not to mention the goods costs) and not meant to represent what a typical middle-class person can make, nonetheless, a typical person.

[veti]

Statistics on survival rates on NPC adventurers are one of the many omissions from Core D&D. However, I would take it that adventuring groups (even of low level) are fairly uncommon and that the profession on its face seems way too dangerous for your average commoner.

My point exactly. This is a question about the setting, not the rules. You can perfectly plausibly design a world where basically everyone has tried adventuring at least once, or a world where the PCs are the first of their kind in ten generations... and either one would still work by the same D&D rules.


Also, there is no expectation outside of Stickverse that encounters be level-appropriate.

Pretty sure there absolutely is (https://www.google.com/search?q=level-appropriate+encounters) that expectation in most D&D games.

[Taelas]

My point exactly. This is a question about the setting, not the rules. You can perfectly plausibly design a world where basically everyone has tried adventuring at least once, or a world where the PCs are the first of their kind in ten generations... and either one would still work by the same D&D rules.
We are discussing the generic setting that the 3.5 core books present.


Pretty sure there absolutely is (https://www.google.com/search?q=level-appropriate+encounters) that expectation in most D&D games.
Most D&D games only feature one party of PCs, and PCs are by definition exceptional. Their experiences cannot be used to gauge how NPCs would fare.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Adventuring parties are not typical, and are usually better trained than many people, even at level 1 (better trained, not more skilled.)

Take your classic adventuring party, for example. A fighter is an exceptionally well trained and well equipped soldier. He/she knows how to use a ridiculous number of weapons and types of armour, and is deadly with just about any of them. A cleric is part of the church hierarchy, already better off than most commoners simply because of that; and don't even get started on the powers granted by the gods. A wizard spends years of their life studying ancient books and musty scrolls in order to learn how to cast spells; years most peasants don't have because they have jobs to do and kids to raise. A rogue, well a rogue can be any number of things. They could be a skilled thief, a con artist, or an assassin, all of which either take skill, practice, and/or training. As outlined with a wizard, a normal person wouldn't be able to do much of this because they wouldn't be able to afford the time or the money to do any of this stuff.

And the concepts of dungeon crawling and adventuring parties and pretty exceptional, too. Going back to the previous example, parties like this probably wouldn't show up. A fighter would immediately join an army, the guard for a noble, or become a mercenary. A cleric would likely stay in the church, to perform whatever duties needed to be done there or to heal people. A wizard would probably prefer to read a new book rather than risk their life going into an ancient ruin filled with who knows what. Rogues (at least to me) seem to mostly be thieves, so they'd do what a thief does best; steal from people. So really, dungeon crawling wouldn't be nearly as common as people think. It doesn't seem that the core rulebooks do a good enough job getting this across, so that could be considered an important omission from them.

[Reddish Mage]

Adventuring parties are not typical, and are usually better trained than many people, even at level 1 (better trained, not more skilled.)

And the concepts of dungeon crawling and adventuring parties and pretty exceptional, too. Going back to the previous example, artist like this probably wouldn't show up. A fighter would immediately join an army, the guard for a noble, or become a mercenary. A cleric would likely stay in the church, to perform whatever duties needed to be done there or to heal people. A wizard would probably prefer to read a new book rather than risk their life going into an ancient ruin filled with who knows what. Rogues (at least to me) seem to mostly be thieves, so they'd do what a thief does best; steal from people. So really, dungeon crawling wouldn't be nearly as common as people think. It doesn't seem that the core rulebooks do a good enough job getting this across, so that could be considered an important omission from them.

The commanility of NPCs adventurers are another major omission. Together with everything else, I get the overall impression that the DM is on his own for figuring out who adventurers are and how they fit in the social universe, a social universe in which such details as in how common people, relatively well-to-do professionals etc live and how different they are from the PCs is absent (or at least presented very thinly).

Thinking about such as how do the temples and clerics control access to healing (is raise dead an option for ordinary people of any sort, or is it an extreme rarity). Temples demand hefty fees for magic healing from adventurers, but adventurers are stranger that Can pay.

So many details, so many choices, so little guidance in core.

[Math_Mage]

Why should D&D define all that? There's no reason to standardize NPC characteristics across campaigns, as opposed to something like combat. What I want aren't rules, but options--material I can kludge together to fit the world I imagine. There's lots of D&D material for that. Then, when things come to blows, I need a combat engine to handle all the random material I threw into the world. D&D is really good at that. Inexperienced DMs can run with the zillions of available prebuilt campaigns and prebuilt worlds; experienced DMs don't need the manual dictating how they build their worlds and campaigns. That's how I see it, anyway.

[Reddish Mage]

Why should D&D define all that? There's no reason to standardize NPC characteristics across campaigns, as opposed to something like combat. What I want aren't rules, but options--material I can kludge together to fit the world I imagine. There's lots of D&D material for that. Then, when things come to blows, I need a combat engine to handle all the random material I threw into the world. D&D is really good at that. Inexperienced DMs can run with the zillions of available prebuilt campaigns and prebuilt worlds; experienced DMs don't need the manual dictating how they build their worlds and campaigns. That's how I see it, anyway.

D&D needn't define the game-world, but the result is that very often I see even moderately experienced DMs putting together these elements helter-skelter. Not everybody is going for pre-fabs (and none of the ones I read answer all these questions). It isn't something that kills the game, but the fact that we can read order of the stick and simply be amused by the clashing and ridiculous background elements in stickworld tells us that the greater game world was simply never important in D&D to begin with.

[Bulldog Psion]

D&D needn't define the game-world, but the result is that very often I see even moderately experienced DMs putting together these elements helter-skelter. Not everybody is going for pre-fabs (and none of the ones I read answer all these questions). It isn't something that kills the game, but the fact that we can read order of the stick and simply be amused by the clashing and ridiculous background elements in stickworld tells us that the greater game world was simply never important in D&D to begin with.

To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. :smallconfused:

[Lappy9001]

My Questions are? Can we expand the list of very vague treatments in Core (please exclude alignment lest we become another one of those threads)? Is this a weakness in D&D? How do the NPCs in your worlds appear (in relative wealth, education, knowledge and opportunity) and how do they treat adventurers? Is there a better and worse way to treat normal NPCs?

I will note, my opinion is that the tendency in D&D supplements is towards greater availability of high level NPCs, and magic, and money, and knowledge.Honestly, the OOTS world treats these things much better than the default D&D 'setting.' For example, I'm sure you've heard the 3.5 economics shennanigans of adventurers throwing around thousands of gold at a town where people make 1 silver a week. A lot of it is a problem with the system, but they're also setting dependant and fairly easy to change.

Many of the things you mention I feel are more narrative conventions. If you're a high-level PC, it makes a certain amount of sense that you'll encounter high(ish)-level NPC's. Sure, you'll see hundreds of 0 level commoners in the market, but you're not there for them, you're passing through to see the high mage of the wizard's council, a master assassin, or a famous war hero. Commoners won't likely matter unless a PC chooses to directly involve themselves in their lives, if the town is attacked, of if a mob comes into play.

Of course, this sort of thing varies on the campaign, and (as others have said) the setting. Eberron, for example, generally has a fairly high amount of education and quality of life for even peasants (at least on the continent of Khorvaire). Forgotten Realms follows a more traditional feudal system.

[Math_Mage]

D&D needn't define the game-world, but the result is that very often I see even moderately experienced DMs putting together these elements helter-skelter. Not everybody is going for pre-fabs (and none of the ones I read answer all these questions). It isn't something that kills the game, but the fact that we can read order of the stick and simply be amused by the clashing and ridiculous background elements in stickworld tells us that the greater game world was simply never important in D&D to begin with.
Who cares if they put elements of their world together haphazardly? That's their prerogative.

The greater game world is not important to the ruleset, and it shouldn't be.

[Taelas]

Erh. Yes, it is actually important. It's important that it is very vague, while still detailed enough to allow for generic races and classes. It is the template we compare our own campaign worlds against.

[Math_Mage]

Erh. Yes, it is actually important. It's important that it is very vague, while still detailed enough to allow for generic races and classes. It is the template we compare our own campaign worlds against.
I think we are in agreement on that, with different words. See my last post before the one you quoted.

[Reddish Mage]

Who cares if they put elements of their world together haphazardly? That's their prerogative.

The greater game world is not important to the ruleset, and it shouldn't be.

But the DMG does give a lot of guidance on this sort of stuff: WBL guidelines, what you can find in various sizes of towns, the price of services, the cost of upkeep. Its only that the guidance given is so vague and has so large the gaps that it can easily lead to DMs putting in structures haphazardly in ways that are not aesthetically pleasing. It certainly makes using an civilized campaign setting less than ideal.

I've noted that in many games I've played the towns seem far less detailed and more generic than the dungeons.

[Everyl]

Who cares if they put elements of their world together haphazardly? That's their prerogative.

The greater game world is not important to the ruleset, and it shouldn't be.

One of the big problems I had with D&D 3.X was the way that the ruleset actually inhibited creating non-haphazard worlds. The game's advancement mechanics tie wealth and character advancement together - the CR system assumes that the PCs have roughly appropriate wealth-by-level in rating its challenges, and that the characters are fairly free to convert that wealth into magic items suitable to tackling those challenges. The default economy is simplistic, with all prices fixed for game-balance purposes, raising many basic questions like how merchants make money if everything is worth the same amount everywhere.

If you want to do something like make a low-magic setting or incorporate basic supply-and-demand economics into a game, you open a very messy can of worms. Want to incorporate some basic supply-and-demand economics to your game? You'll need to re-define numerous spell components, since 5000 gp worth of diamonds is a lot fewer diamonds in a city where they're in fashion among the nobility, but there are no diamond mines within hundreds of miles, than it is in the town built around the mine. The magic item crafting system also likely needs adjustment; how is it that the materials to make a +1 sword always cost about 2000 gp, no matter what else is happening in the economy? Wouldn't exotic, high-quality steel forged in a fire built with charcoal made from the heartwood of a hundred-year-old oak (or whatever that 2000 gp is paying for) have a different cost in a sandy desert than in a forested, mineral-rich mountainous region?

And if you want to adjust how common magic items are, making them expensive and difficult to buy or sell, then you are also tweaking the difficulty curve of the game. Monsters with DR/magic become a lot more dangerous, and might need a CR adjustment. Just limiting the trade of magic items makes the game's difficulty go up, throwing CR values out of whack across the board. Inaccurate CR values mean characters get fewer experience points, depriving them of yet another resource that has a market value based on magic item creation rules and spellcasting service prices.

In short, many of the systems in the core 3.X D&D rules are so entangled with one another that it is difficult to modify one of them without unintended consequences on others. 10 years or so ago, this really bothered me, and eventually drove me to play other games instead. Now, I have a lot more experience as a GM, so I'm not afraid to try dismantling the engine and assembling it into something different, and just winging it to cover any resulting problems. When I was a rookie DM, however, making big changes to the system to make it fit my setting better was highly intimidating.

[Cirin]

Although it would be very nice of them to publish some tips on world-building, like how medieval economy works and how much ground is covered with fields around one village. I had to google all this info when building my own setting, and I found some articles written specifically for DnD and similar games... and they were not by WotC )=

D&D has had several books like that over the years. The Castle Guide, World Builder's Guidebook ect.

In response to the original poster's question: I looked at that list and thought "why would D&D have rules for that?"

You want every D&D setting to have the same economic system? Eberron, Forgotten Realms (including Kara Tur), Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Birthright, Mystara, Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft. . .those settings are all going to have completely different economies, and usually pretty different economies just from one part of the setting to another.

Instead, the rules provide a baseline for things that will come up in pretty much every game. Combat. Magic. Magic items. Monsters. Skills.

Economy? That can vary so widely, especially depending on the availability of magical transportation, in-game political concerns, countless other factors.

Also, in most D&D games they are never going to get that into dealing with the economy. The big questions, economy-wise, are things like "can I buy 'X" in this town?" or "how much will 'x" item/spell cost to buy". . .which it (at least 3.5, don't know and don't care about 4e) has rules for.

If there was such a huge demand for D&D rules about macroeconomics I am sure the playtesters for 3e, 3.5e, 4e, and 5e would have demanded it by now.