Showing posts with label pedantry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pedantry. Show all posts

Wednesday, 15 May 2024

On edge cases and magic

There's an innate design tension which RPG magic systems must contend with.

Magic must be more powerful than enacting the equivalent effect by mundane means, otherwise it's not fun and not fantastic. But if it's powerful and its uses are limitless (or at least non-rate-limited), then you become committed to an exceptionally high-magic setting.

If it takes ten seconds to give yourself a magical boon which lasts for ten minutes, the default player behaviour and the reasonable in-world behaviour will be to cast the spell every ten minutes... Unless they have a specific reason not to. That's almost always 'resource management'. In almost ever fantasy TTRPG, magic (whether spells, items, rituals, innate powers, etc) will be powerful and limited, i.e., a valuable resource; something to be conserved for when it will matter. Therefore, players will want to know the exact effect of some magic they might use, so that they can make an informed choice.

And this creates a design tension. How predictable to players is the magic their characters are harnessing?

Witch casting spell from book


The predictability predicament

Assuming you want magic to be able to do a huge range of things (it's magic), to get breadth of coverage, you either end up with these huge, minutely-detailed lists of magic effects and parameters (almost certainly player-facing), or you have a fuzzy system where the GM instantiates vague wordings at runtime (possibly via what amounts to negotiation with the player). These game design choices have different costs in terms of usability and satisfaction.

Most big, popular fantasy TTRPGs like D&D go with the huge, minutely-detailed lists of magic effects option. This arguably results in greater player agency, in the sense of being able to make good and meaningful decisions about resource allocation, but it constrains magic to the big official list (and if it's not exceptionally well-designed, you end up with weird codified corner cases and interactions). You also need to know the system really well to be effective as a player or a GM. Finally, there's a risk that presenting in exhaustive detail what is possible strongly implies that anything else isn't possible. You get cases like D&D 5e, where many destructive spells officially don't damage objects because a small subset of them specify that they do.

The fuzzy system option is attractive because it makes magic more 'mysterious' and wild, and thus fantastical. But it can be hard for a GM, especially one who isn't already operating in a "rulings not rules" tradition. But it can also be hard for players to come to terms with, unless either (a) it's the case in-world that a mage never knows exactly what they're going to get when they do some magic (which is flavourful, but risks a poor play experience), or (b) the GM and player together determine what happens when the magic is used. The latter might sound good (an opportunity for collaborative buy-in) or bad ('Mother May I' gameplay). Some GMs are surprised to find that many players hate 'collaborative storytelling exercises' spilling over into their roleplaying games. Either way, it doesn't actually resolve the tension: it's still in the player's best interests to stop and discuss the possible magical effect before they can make an informed choice whether to use their magic.

Variants of the fuzzy system where e.g. the GM has to follow certain rules to come up with a power-level-appropriate instantiation of a spell at run-time are close to being the worst of both worlds: mechanically fiddly but without giving a player enough information to make decisions with, and you just end up building that minutely-detailed canonical list slowly over time.

Resolving the tension

I consider this an open problem. As I've suggested before, I think the best practises are to

  • Pick a path and stick with it, rather than mixing up how rigid and predictable the magic system is in different use-cases within the same game; and
  • Have an extremely strong, well-thought out metaphysics which either underpins the mechanical design for the minutely-detailed lists option or informs what 'should be the case' for the fuzzy system option.

Food for thought

Here are some questions your magic system must be robust enough to answer, consistently:

If you turn flour to silver dust and mix it into acid, changing it to silver nitrate and creating heat, what happens to the silver nitrate if the spell wears off? What happens to the heat? If the compound is left over, can you reduce it to get silver? Does the resulting silver still count as being magical?

If you turn a pile of stones into loaves of bread and spend a week eating them, what happens to your tissue, the partially-digested bread, and the waste, if the magic ends? Do you die instantly? Does the energy you got from eating disappear?

If you turn a stone into a cat, and that cat eats and sweats and breathes makes waste, then the magic is dispelled, what happens to the bits of world (food and air and water) that got incorporated into the cat's body? Are they in the stone? Do they turn to stone? Can they be turned back? What happens to the cat's sweat and waste and loose hairs and skin particles out in the world? Do they turn to stone? What if the cat was a kitten, and it grew much bigger and older before the spell ended?

Or if the original subject was a mouse rather than a stone, what happens to the cells that changed in its body? Was there a 'mapping' from one mouse cell to multiple cat cells, so that injuries and shed cells and replaced cells carry back over? Do microbial diseases carry back over? Does cancer?

Are all your answers consistent so far?

What happens if you turn someone into a statue and snap their arm off? What about if you turn someone into steel and then temper or anneal the metal? Or take a mould of their body, turn them into ice, melt them, and then refreeze the water in the mould?

What about if you turn a piece of metal into a piece of wood and burn it inside a big tank of air? Does the carbon dioxide turn into a metal oxide? In general, if you heat something up while it's magically transformed and then turn it back, is it still hot? What if you turned something really small into something really big and then it just got slightly warm by soaking up a million times more sunlight than the tiny thing would have?

If you expand a mouse to be the size of a horse and it eats a bucket of oats, what happens to the oats if it turns back? Does it matter whether they've been digested?

If you expand a mouse to be the size of a horse inside a mouse-sized terrarium that a mouse couldn't possibly break but a horse easily could, does the spell work? Does the answer change if the terrarium is nearly horse-sized? What about if you try it on a mouse that's inside a crack in solid rock? Is this meaningfully different from trapping a mouse under a piece of heavy cloth and then expanding it to the size of a horse?

If you cast a spell on a subject, then another one that seems to have the inverse effect (flesh to rock then rock to flesh), do you get back the exact original? If so, why? If not, what happens if only the first spell ends or is dispelled? What if you cast the first spell, then make some orthogonal change to the subject, then cast the second?

What in-universe mechanism decides whether an object counts as meeting the targeting requirements of a spell? Does a spell that works on chairs work on a one-legged stool if the caster doesn't think a one-legged stool is a chair?

Do any of the answers to these questions change depending on whether it's a temporary effect, a dispelled permanent effect, a magically reversed effect, an intrinsic ability of a magical creature, the effect of an item, etc?

Two wizards examine an elixir


Thursday, 28 September 2023

Lockpicking! Windows! Maps! Burning oil! The concept of fantasy pseudo-anachronism!

Let's look at pseudo-anachronistic technologies in fantasy fiction (with a TTRPG lens as usual, but I think this also mostly applies to other media).

When Arneson invented the first fantasy roleplaying game, he incorporated numerous science fiction elements. This could be viewed as weird rough edges of what would bloom into the greater hobby, but it was also a product of the concurrent boom era of pulp fantasy and pulp science fiction. Most people coming to D&D and its burgeoning successors could be assumed to have an interest in those kinds of stories. Science fiction aspects (machines, martians, rayguns, etc) stayed in early D&D and the emerging fantasy TTRPG traditions for a while before dying off and it's easy to imagine an alternative pathway where that was the default today. In reality though, in contrast to these roots, 'classic' fantasy is now regarded as a set of tropes which include a setting's technology conforming to a certain band of real-world history and geography.

Interestingly, those tropes are imperfect: they deviate from that implied band of technology in a few particular ways.


Pseudo-anachronism: Or, how we can "know" that Elrond doesn't own a skateboard

What do I mean by 'pseudo-anachronism'? Well, just 'anachronism' doesn't work; it's a word that only applies to historical real-world settings. It's Ancient Romans wearing wax lips and wristwatches. It's Kamakura shoguns carrying shotguns and sherrif badges.

'Anachronism' doesn't apply to fantasy worlds. But there are 'classic' fantasy tropes: default values, as it were. Many settings are designed as if they mostly conformed to certain real-world historical settings, so that players' brains automatically fill in the gaps of what 'ought' to be there. And to drill down into 'certain real-world historical settings', classic generic fantasy tends towards vaguely Late Middle Ages or Renaissance European pastiche. (There's an argument that this particular imagined pseudo-historical window represents a drift towards a later period from the initially D&D roots which blended pseudo-Arthurian jousting-and-castles with Hyborian Age ancient sword-and-sorcery, but nowadays that 1300s-to-1600s Western European default is quite strong in stodgy 'classic' fantasy.) Game masters and players alike will tend to fill in any blanks with what they understand to be a pre-industrial technology level beginning at clocks and the three-field system and ending at huge ruff collars. Then add to the mix a melange of societal assumptions drawn from modernity and pop history, seemingly divorced from available technologies.

So in a 'classic' fantasy implied setting, there is an expectation of a certain tech level. If it turns out that, say, consumer plastics exist, players won't think "oh, these people happen to have plastics technology". They'll think "huh, I wonder what unique magic is producing plastics". Or more cynically, "huh, that's stupid and immersion-breaking."

Nowhere in Tolkien's corpus does he write that Elrond doesn't own a skateboard. And yet we can confidently state that to be true. That's the essence of pseudo-anachronism.



Nerdbait The curse of knowledge

If you're like me, then when you know a topic well, it's grating to see it portrayed badly in fictive media. It may even feel like the more you know about a subject, the worse and more common this problem is, and the natural/cynical conclusion is that pretty much all media only ever gets things right on accident but you're only equipped to notice it when it happens within your domains of interest.

I've certainly found that some of my interests (historical technologies) have ruined some quite major media works for me. Fortunately in the case of my favourite hobby (fantasy TTRPGs), all you need to do is work out what's bothering you and then tweak the world (in self-consistent, verisimilitudinous ways) so that it actually makes sense within the setting.

It's nice when things are self-consistent. And it helps at the table, because players appreciate it when things hang together, too:

Every time players discover that some part of their fantastical world is more logical and organized than they’d given it credit for, their faith in the quality of the GMing, strength of the worldbuilding, and reach of the GM’s imagination surge forward. They’re more inclined to think themselves about how the game fits together–they’re more inclined to think about what NPCs would do, about how the gameworld will react, than plan in mechanical and metagame terms.
(From a slightly older article but a short one worth checking out if you're into cases of fantasy verisimilitude)


Individual pseudo-anachronistic technologies

So, we're left with a question: what kind of stuff "shouldn't" be in the vaguely Late Middle Ages / Renaissance European default setting of 'classic' Western fantasy? Let's take a look at five common pseudo-anachronisms and, rather than just flagging them for removal, come up with some in-fantasy-world reasons to justify allowing them.



Modern locks and skilled lockpickers

For many people, Skyrim or something like it is the archetypal fantasy 'locks and lockpicking' experience. You (1) pop in a torsion tool to keep pressure on the barrel, (2) apply your skill to fiddle around with a lockpick in the keyway, and (3) the lock opens. This is also implied in the fiction of most fantasy TTRPG/novel settings: the roguish character needs both the necessary skills, and the sophisticated tools, to pick a lock.

Here's the problem: skill-based lockpicking with clever tools is really only necessary to subvert a specific kind of lock, which I will call a 'modern pin tumbler lock'. It's a tumbler with a stack of pins whose variable height at the shear line and rotating barrel mean that pins must be set to the exact height that the key is designed to lift them to. And it's a kind of lock that was only invented, and entered use, in the late 1800s.

Earlier locks were of two main types. First, there were ancient pin-based locks, but their pins couldn't be lifted 'too high'. Even a well-designed one could be defeated easily by putting a bent rod or stick in the keyway and pushing all the pins up. (A poorly-designed one that didn't protect the pins could be defeated in a single motion by putting anything in the keyway.) You could completely master subverting old pin locks in well under an hour, and you don't need special tools for it.

The second type, and the best lock technology for thousands of years, was a warded lock. This has complex 'wards' (metal shapes) meant to prevent the wrong key turning in it. A warded lock can be defeated by a skeleton key (a filed-down regular key). Picking a warded lock therefore amounts to using a big bundle of 'tryout keys' and if they failed, trying various bent rods until one was the right shape to move the latch or bolt. Again, lockpicking before the advent of the modern pin tumbler doesn't require much skill, so we have a pseudo-anachronism.

We'd like huge fiendish fantasy traps and complicated locking mechanisms with poison needles artfully hidden in them and cunning thieves with bundles full of specially-made picks, though. So can we say that a modern pin tumbler lock could have been invented in a much earlier technology level?

The idea for the modern pin tumbler doesn't seem like the tricky part. Ideas can be justified as coming from anywhere at any time. The little springs in the key stack might be tricky, as is the overall complexity of the mechanism. You need (1) good metallurgy (so bits don't break or bend), (2) fine engineering tolerances (so bits don't fail or jam), and (3) good manufacturing processes (so the key actually works and the lock doesn't have other security flaws). You also arguably need to keep the skilled labour cost down, at least to the point where wealthy people with things they want secured might invest in a lock instead of a magical solution. I think all of these are within striking distance of your classic fantasy world, as are the more epic extensions to huge fantastic locks, trapped locks, etc. In particular, the setting likely has supernaturally clever people with small fingers and an affinity for metalwork - gnomes and/or dwarves.

There's also an alternative. Maybe nobody's invented the modern pin tumbler lock, but there's still skill-based lockpicking, because fantasy metallurgy allows for entirely new types of lock. Fantasy loosens the constraints on the laws of physics: we can imagine particular metals that can pass through each other to a certain depth, mechanisms that magically seize up in the presence of common key metals, enchantments that are sensitive to the colour of things that get put in the keyway, and so on. Lockpicking could be a massively skill-based art without the actual locks being very mechanically advanced!


Large glass panes

Many classic fantasy settings 'get this right' but others don't. In general, a window in the form of a sheet of glass large enough to look through, and clear and flat enough to identify what you're seeing on the other side, requires modern technology.

Up until the 1800s, glass panes were distorted rather than properly flat, and not very transparent. They were also more brittle than modern glass, both chemically and because of inclusions and bubbles that weakened it even further. On top of all that, glass was expensive to make! So shutters and curtains were preferred in most buildings, in most places and times (certain cathedrals, palaces, etc notwithstanding).

There were a few methods of making 'flat' glass, mostly based on blowing a globe or tube, flattening it on a metal plate, then cutting it up (crown glass and broad sheet glass). These made for translucent or semi-opaque pieces, not transparent ones, usually riddled with imperfections and distortions. You could grind the best ones down into 'blown plate glass', which would be finer quality and even smaller. To make a window out of the little panes that a glassmaker could produce, you would make 'leadlights', setting a large number of small pieces into a lead (or occasionally ceramic) lattice.

In the late 1600s, 'polished plate glass' was a slight improvement that could make larger and higher quality glass panes by casting glass on a metal surface and then grinding it down, but it was even more costly to produce.

It wasn't until the late 1800s that broad sheet methods were developed into 'cylinder blown sheet' glass which could make larger panes, albeit ones that needed grinding and polishing. From this point, glass could be used as a building material (and became popular after its use in the Crystal Palace of 1851). To get true modern large glass window panes you need the 'float glass' method (molten glass poured onto large baths of molten metal, taking the form of long flat ribbons, gradually cooled and rolled off at the other end). So, nice big windows are a pseudo-anachronism.

The good news: it's possible to make large glass panes using relatively simple metallurgy, hot furnaces, and a truly enormous capital investment. My amateur view is that the fact we didn't get the technology until the 19th Century can be considered an accident of history. In a fantasy world that has glassworkers, metalworkers, and their extremely wealthy patrons, it should be doable, either at incredible decadent kingly expense, or with the help of magic.



Common use of accurate maps

We all know what a map is. A simplified top-down image of a place at a certain scale showing natural and constructed features positioned correctly with regard to their actual positions in space for use as a key tool of navigation and planning. Right? Well, no, that's a modern lens. Many early maps are some combination of (a) allegorical, (b) valuable art pieces for display, (c) neither top-down nor to scale, (d) extremely inaccurate. Despite being ubiquitous in the modern day, reading a top-down map or even understanding what a map means is a learned skill, and not trivially so. Don't expect pre-industrial people to be able to purchase a map, read one, or know what one is.

Cartography generally started out as maps 'of the world', produced by philosophers and scholars to chart what they knew about their universe and/or so their wealthy and powerful patrons could show off. Later, there were maps of territories, and early sea charts. Eventually, local maps of property boundaries were made for gentry, lawyers, and courts.

High-quality terrain maps were only made pretty late in history, driven by demand from military commanders for increased information as the nature of warfare changed. Using maps at all for the purposes of military planning is a recent phenomenon: even though it seems absolutely intrinsic to us now, ancient military commanders and most pre-industrial ones didn't use them at all.

It must be emphasised that people just didn't think in terms of top-down map-like views like we do. Navigation was landmark-based. The central navigational tool for armies was knowledge of the network of known major roads and locally-known minor roads and paths, i.e., institutional knowledge plus scouts and local guides. Not maps. The central navigational tool for civilian travelers was itineraries (codified routes between multiple settlements, usually major cities / ports / pilgrimage destinations), i.e., written or memorised lists of directions, supplemented with asking locals. Not maps. At most you might see sketch images of some terrain features you were navigating by, or a lengthy itinerary might be written on top of a crude map of the continent as illustrative backdrop.

Maps (as local navigation aids) could have been an extremely useful tool for pre-industrial merchants, sailors, military commanders, property owners, and explorers, and yet, they for the most part neither made them nor used them nor understood the idea. (To that list of occupations we might add: dungeon delvers.)

detailed topographical maps of the sort that hikers today might rely on remained rare deep into the modern period, especially maps of large areas [...] Getting lost in unfamiliar territory was thus a very real hazard. Indeed, getting lost in familiar territory was a real hazard

- ACOUP

But there's so much map-heavy fantasy media that it permeates our vision of the past! I think "fantasy=maps" because (a) a map makes a great visual, (b) Tolkien casts a long shadow, and (c) we end up importing all kinds of modern assumptions. Nevertheless, regular people having access to accurate maps and the skills to read them? As remarkable as it seems, probably pseudo-anachronistic. Here's a crude compressed history (drawn from Wikipedia and some AskHistorians threads like this one):

1200s: First maps for ship navigation (portolan charts). Mostly useful for particular known routes, required a good compass, and weren't much use in working out where you were if you ended up far off course. Note that adequately mapping inland regions is much more difficult than coastlines: travel is both slower and more difficult, there are more features to include on the map, and parts of the terrain are inaccessible or obscured by other parts.

Late 1400s: Latitude starts being measured for the purposes of navigating ships. Longitude is vastly more difficult to measure. Explorers like Duarte Pacheco Pereira (1460-1533) make charts and depict parts of coastlines, but as a supplemental part of a highly text-based, descriptive approach to navigation aids.

Early 1500s: Latitude information starts being included on maps, at least for ship navigation.

1500s: First accounts of battles and larger-scale military movements being planned using maps, as reasonable quality land maps start to become available. See e.g. '[Duke] Cosimo studies the taking of Siena' (set in 1553 and painted ten years after), whose subject uses compasses on a map supplemented by a visual depiction of the city.

1600s-1700s: Land maps slowly become more widespread, but far from ubiquitous; the average person definitely cannot read one and the average military commander may or may not be able to. Local usable maps are mostly 'cadastral' maps, i.e., depictions of the legal boundaries, areas and dimensions of particular properties and territories.

Late 1700s: Longitude can finally be reliably measured for the purposes of navigating ships.

Early 1800s: Government-directed surge of high-quality, detailed cartography for military purposes starts in Prussia. This is probably in reaction to a perception that Napoleon's military successes were information-driven. Something like the modern capacity for (and importance of) topographic map-making and map-reading finally starts to be promulgated across Europe (but still only for soldiers). The perceived importance of knowing the terrain is possibly spurred by some other big-picture changes in warfare like army size, logistics and railroads, the role of artillery, speed of battle, etc.

Mid 1800s: Reliable chronometers become common equipment on ocean-going ships; it is finally the era of both making and using good sea maps.


So, 'owning a map and knowing how to read it' is a pseudo-anachronistic fantasy trope unless you're a learned scholar with an interest in philosophy, a lawyer with an interest in property boundaries, or a wealthy lettered ruler with an interest in territorial boundaries - at least until the Renaissance and Early Modern periods, and even then, the list only expands to 'ship navigators' and 'military commanders'.

Whoof! Well, everyone loves maps, so what's the solution? Fortunately, (a) we can give pretty much any fantasy world a history of large armies and sorcerous or monstrous powers mimicking the role of Napoleonic armies as a driver for accurate cartography, and (b) there's probably already magical flight (and/or scrying capable of mimicking a satellite view). Having a mage with a view from high off the ground means having someone who can make accurate maps without the base of sophisticated mathematics and laborious surveying technologies which you'd otherwise need. In a world where flight or distance viewing is 'cheap', we can expect this to be done just out of scholarly interest and/or for the benefit of local rulers and wealthy patrons, so we don't even need maps to be warfare-driven. Pseudo-anachronism solved!


Metal doodads

Metal is a wonder material. It comes in many different kinds with many different properties, and the tools you can make from it are harder/lighter/more durable/sharper edged/etc. Metal is also precious. In our world, at least, most of the useful stuff is tied up in minerals: iron is abundant but a hassle to smelt from ore, and other base metals are either less abundant than iron, much softer, or both.

A couple of historical notes.

First, I discovered while writing this that doorknobs were only invented in 1878. That's top of my personal list of 'new technologies you would have expected Shakespeare to be familiar with'!

Second, threaded screws are fairly old technology, but they had to be hand-made. High-quality threading of the kind you can reliably join a nut to only came about with 'swaging tools' in the 1850s, so nuts and bolts should be considered modern. In general, early woodworking preferred skilled joinery over nails (because iron was expensive and nails had to be individually made), and in turn preferred nails over wood screws (because it's a nail plus a bunch of incredibly meticulous skilled labour cutting a thread into it). Fantasy carpenters, take note.

This is minor stuff, barely even pseudo-anachronistic, and I think is pretty much covered by the discussion of locks and glass above. Nobody's actually going to be thrown out of the flow if you mention doorknobs. You can also change things up by having useful metals be naturally more prevalent in your fantasy world without even getting into 'standing portals to the elemental plane of iron' and so on.


Explosively flammable lamp oil

Here's a classic fantasy trope: you toss the lantern onto the cobbles and it WHUMPHS into a fireball. You douse the monster in lamp oil and one strike of a torch turns it into barbecue. Fantasy oil is not merely combustible but wildly flammable!

The pseudo-anachronism is obvious if you have a basic knowledge of materials science: pre-industrial people weren't using volatile substances with low flash points for everyday lighting, cooking, and heating. They were using plant oils (mostly olive oil) and animal fats (mostly fish oil or whale oil). To make torches and candles, add pitch, resin, beeswax, and tallow to the mix.

None of those things burn by themselves if you touch a flame to them. All of them have to be heated up a lot before they will catch fire and stay burning, except in the case where they're serving as the fuel for a burning wick.

(Read these three articles and the comments on them for a more full treatment of the topic with regards to original D&D)

To have lamp oil catch like petrol it has to actually be, well, petrol (or something like it). Again, there is no overlap between 'things you can make a room-temperature incendiary weapon from' and 'pre-industrial materials used for domestic fires'. Even when you refine petroleum, you produce some fractions with a low enough flash point to ignite and burn even on a cold day (petrol, notably), but you also get a bunch of other fractions whose flash point is too high (diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel don't burn at room temperature and pressure - you'd have to stop and boil your 'lamp oil' over a fire for a while before throwing these ones).

Alternatively, I guess you could burn particular alcohol distillates, like ethanol, in your lamp. If you had more money than Midas and no fear of fire.

Now, technologies to refine rock oil and distill alcohol were discovered a long time ago, well within the classic fantasy setting era, but these low flash point substances are very labour- and resource- intensive to produce by hand. If you want old timey incendiary grenades on your equipment list, they have to be made of something other than 'lamp oil' and multiple orders of magnitude more expensive than it. There's a few more caveats: early incendiary weapons (e.g., 'Greek fire') seem to have been delivered by catapult or huge portable siphon more often than thrown vessels, seem like they were difficult to wield safely and reliably, and were a state secret. All those objections can be overcome by adding a new fantasy material that works as an incendiary, of course. Fire weapons are cool and well-entrenched in the genre, so I say go for it.

I like the idea of combining the two classic fantasy thrown weapons – holy water and flammable oil – as a single plausible substance. My pick for the 'holy fire' weapon is ethanol: it burns with a mysterious smokeless flame that is very faint and blue, it can be poured on wounds to stop them suppurating, and the incautious imbiber is struck with euphoria, visions, and sometimes a debilitating curse. It's an old technology but costly to get your hands on (because it has to be distilled by a learned sage, using up valuable farm produce in the process). And the concept of extremely evil monsters having a specific vulnerability to 'smokeless flame' is just as cool as the well-trod and curiously Christianity-centric concept of them being harmed by blessed water.


And then also

So that's my notes on resolving pseudo-anachronisms for specific individual technologies in classic fantasy settings.

Now available: Part 2, a scattering of addenda on missing technologies, systemic technologies, and societal features!

Monday, 18 September 2023

The hit point problem


...Or, what do HP actually represent (in traditional RPGs and their descendants)?


Dr Bret Devereaux's recent article on armour and RPGs, in talking about how armour actually works, reminded me about this argument. It's an argument that's older than the internet, an argument that's fundamentally pointless, an argument that's been rehashed thousands if not millions of times... so I thought I might as well get into it briefly.

Let's start here:

Hit points are a combination of actual physical constitution, skill at the avoidance of taking real physical damage, luck and/or magical or divine factors. [...] a near-miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, [...] more often than not a grazing blow, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal. If sufficient numbers of such wounds accrue to the character, however, stamina, skill, and luck will eventually run out, and an attack will strike home
- Gary Gygax, Dragon #24


It seems widely accepted, as well as being straight from the horse's mouth, that hit points are a mixture of a creature's capacity for and resilience against suffering injury ('meat points') and its chances, for various reasons, of avoiding serious injury in situations in which it might suffer serious injury ('grace points').

There's an implication that grace points are mostly 'used up' before meat points. And the obvious interpretation is that there's some (unspecified) ratio of grace to meat.

Unfortunately it's still impossible to arrive at a really self-consistent understanding of hit points in D&D-likes, whether you think HP is 0.1% meat and 99.9% grace, 99.9% meat and 0.1% grace, or anything in between.

HP must be almost entirely meat points, for the following reasons.

  • 1 damage to a 100-HP creature has to entail actual physical harm because it can come with 'riders' like injecting poison from a poison-tipped dart. If the dart didn't pierce the flesh 'on hit', it wouldn't have been able to convey the poison. At the other end of the spectrum, 100 damage is enough to kill the creature (or nearly so, depending on edition), so that too must be actual physical harm.
  • In trad games, higher Constitution improves HP (i.e., meat points). In comparison, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Intelligence (i.e., grace points) don't improve hit points at all, and neither do weapon/armour use skills and features (when they exist). If grace points made up a non-negligible proportion of hit points, having these attributes would affect HP total.
  • Numerous game effects, spells, items, and so on have descriptors that equate even potentially quite small amounts of HP recovery with descriptions of physical wounds closing. I would guess an outright majority of supernatural healing effects involve physical injury in their description, with most of the others being ambivalent or lacking description, and very few indeed talking about restoring anything that seems like grace points.
  • Plenty of damage in classic RPGs comes from sources that can't easily be mitigated (or can come from them in principle, for no special rules for when that happens). You character is stabbed while unconscious. Your character falls onto a field of spikes. Your character swims across an acid lake. Your character takes intermittent damage from rotting disease. The moisture is leached from your character's body by a horrid spell. In cases like these, half of the justification for 'grace points' can't be in play: the character isn't 'using skill to avoid harm', the damage isn't 'near-misses', and the character isn't just 'getting tired' or 'pushing their luck'. There are whole character archetypes unlikely to be protected by 'divine forces' or 'magical factors'.


Of course, it's also true that

HP has to be almost entirely grace points, for the following reasons.

  • When a 100-HP creature takes 99 damage, this doesn't seem to involve any actual physical harm: in classic games being down to 1 HP has no immediate in-game consequence on the creature (notable exception: D&D 4e's bloodied condition, and even then the effect isn't "a massive reduction in all of the wounded creature's physical capabilities" like you would expect). Per rules, the creature doesn't fall over or involuntarily scream or pass out from pain or anything. (And sure, the game rules are an abstraction, but the same RPGs will have other subsystems that are vastly more fine-grained than the idea that if you put a sword through someone, it has major traumatic effects.) There is never any indication that the GM is expected to improvise these consequences, either.
  • Martial characters get more hit points; they're the ones who are best able to avoid harm, because that is what all of their training is for. That harm avoidance is HP.
  • Characters gain hit points with level, at a rate that is vastly higher than remotely plausible variance in a person's actual ability to survive wounds. You could maybe convince me that some exceptional person could have twice as many 'meat points' as average. Three, four, five times? No way.
  • The same plausibility argument applies in general. A twelve-foot giant should weigh about 1500 lbs or 700 kg. If something like that swings an axe at you and it connects, the best you can hope for is that whatever gets lopped off is non-vital. Plenty of D&D-like games would model this attack hitting as something that can be slept off (depending on a damage roll, possibly). High-level characters might take dozens of such hits, depending on the game.


So we've immediately run into contradiction: some things in the game tell us that HP is almost all meat, and other things tell us that HP is almost all grace.


Side note

There's another reason we're unlikely to square the circle and find a self-consistent explanation in (most) HP-based games: Extreme injury.

Suppose 100 damage is just enough to kill some creature: It has 100 HP, or 90, or 90 and then flubs some rolls, or whatever. For this creature, 100 damage kills, so 99 damage is as close to a mortal wound as you can get. This amount of harm heals naturally, and perfectly, very fast, in almost every trad game I've ever seen. In modern editions, this near-mortal wound just goes away overnight! In contrast, I've personally had garden scratches that took a week to heal. Even in OD&D, the upper limit on healing is one month. That would be an optimistic timeframe for being discharged in a modern hospital after "a wound that very nearly killed you". That kind of wound would usually be the beginning of years of physical therapy, if not permanent disability.

COUNTERARGUMENT 1: We can concoct explanations for this, involving abstraction, and how much more survivable wounds are with modern medicine (or with fantasy magic), and how unfun it is to play out deadly infections or characters with degraded abilities, and how we don't want to require a player to play a character who's only definitely going to die rather than dead... sure. I've never heard one that's really comprehensive within the fiction, which is what I'm mostly concerned with.

COUNTERARGUMENT 2: Some games layer lingering injury frameworks, scar systems, etc, onto HP systems. This is fine, and sometimes works pretty well! I will note that in my experience they usually still don't go far enough to make for good simulation, and in particular these additional systems almost always still use a weird sped-up timeframe. I think they're also pretty rare on the whole, for traditional D&D-likes. I like em, though.

COUNTERARGUMENT 3: Some fantasy game worlds might be assumed to have low-level magical healing on tap everywhere, so a very slow trickle of hit points amounts to recovering your HP overnight (or 2d6/night or with one full day of bed rest or whatever). Sure, this works in principle. But I don't think many games come right out and say in their setting information that this is what's going on; it's hard to import into most worlds; it also precludes some genre features, like the existence of lingering injuries and old scars in the broad populace.




Finally, let's flip it around and consider actual practises at the table, where this matters. It's always been the case that certain rules get ignored or changed by swathes of gamers.

At the table, what GM ever describes a sword swing inflicting 10 damage as 'you nearly get hit' or 'they get a little tired jumping out of the way of the sword's arc' or 'fortunately for the ogre, your blade bounces off his belt buckle'? My impression is that this essentially never happens, in part because it makes a hit sound just like a miss, which is both confusing and a letdown.

What I do see, sometimes, is GMs being cautious and sometimes even vague about what is going on within the world – not really a sign that everything is as it should be in the game. They describe damage to enemies as flesh wounds (up until the moment it kills), and damage to characters as minor abrasions and bruises. They're careful not to imply any level of injury that would have actual game world impact (like impeding a creature's movement or making it leave a trail of blood) or later raise questions like 'you said I shattered his arm with that critical hit, how is he climbing the rope now?' or 'you said I was skewered by three arrows, how come I got better completely overnight?'

And likewise, I sometimes see GMs avoid describing the effects of magical healing as 'knitting together wounds', 'restoring all your blood', etc – and sometimes just not describe it at all – because that implies the character had been seriously wounded, and it somehow never feels like a character is badly wounded at the table, no matter how low their HP goes.

And in other cases, I see tables of players and GMs venture into absurdism, where HP loss is always a grisly wound described with relish; such wounds come and go entirely without any knock-on effects within the world, disappearing overnight.


Reconciliation


Is there a way around this without having to hack some extremely core game rules?

Solution 1: Embrace indeterminacy. Hit points don't really mean anything, and wounds are never described until the moment they are gone. If 50 lost hit points are immediately restored by a powerful healing spell then it may well have been a devastating wound (especially if the sufferer was 'dying' as per e.g. 5e rules), and the GM may feel free to describe it that way. But when a character suffers through an afternoon's adventure with 50 missing hit points and they get restored overnight, those ones were in retrospect obviously just a little fatigue (not enough to cause exhaustion), scratches and bruises (not enough to impede movement), and 'expended' luck or divine grace (whatever that means).

Solution 2: Play it straight. This fantasy world is different from our own because of its fantasy elements, and those fantasy elements officially include people's bodies operating utterly differently to how they do in our world. You can go from 'fifty-fifty chance of death' to 'top physical condition' overnight with no magical intervention because that's how it is in this universe. People of this world have no lingering injuries unless they were inflicted by one of the few extremely specific spells or powers that do that.

Solution 3: Beer and pretzels game. Just don't think about it.

Solution 4: It's meta. The game, in being played, produces a story of action in a heroic genre; all the bits of that story which don't make sense are because of (say) unreliable storytellers or other narrative tricks. At the moment it is happening at the table, nothing means anything; after the game, the resulting story is allowed to be inconsistent and impossible, because it's just a story. Yes, this undermines the very concept of roleplaying, so what?

Solution 5: It's stochastic. The lower a character's hit points – whether from injury or being fragile or low level – the more likely they are to die from the next attack. That's the only thing that 'HP' means. All attacks do little to no physical harm until the one that does: health and injury are a random walk on a line. More damaging attacks are both more likely to kill, and more likely to cause successive attacks to kill. And maimings, debilitating wounds, and true life-or-death situations cannot occur (presumably for one of the other four reasons above).

I don't think any of these solutions are very good. #1 is perhaps the most palatable, especially if it starts out hiding behind #3 as so seems more adequate once revealed.

Final thoughts

There's no good way to conclude because when it comes to 'what hit points mean' there's no conclusion to reach, no advice to give – hence the thousands or possibly millions of times something like this has been written or said before. These days I'm personally drawn to the idea of systems designed with something less abstract than hit points, as a way of making play experience more immersive, but, well, I think most players, most of the time, still like HP.

Thursday, 24 August 2023

Brigands and bandits and corsairs, oh my

Differentiate your criminal malefactors!

You may not know it, but terms like 'bandits', 'outlaws', 'pillagers', 'highwaymen', and so on all mean different things. If your party is going up against violent robbers and criminals in your game, make sure you know the difference, because a freebooter isn't a pirate if they're from your kingdom, and a footpad shouldn't necessarily be treated as if they were an outlaw.

All kinds of criminal malefactors are more likely to be found where there is weak state administration, rough terrain, and recent or nearby war.

BRIGANDS

Brigands are highway robbers - people who steal from travellers on roads, usually by force and/or intimidation. They usually operate as a gang and are commonly deserted soldiers.

Footpads are brigands on foot.

Highwayman are brigands who are usually mounted and - being able to roam widely to find targets and escape consequences - less likely to be part of a gang. Carjackers are modern highwaymen who steal cars.

Expected TTRPG PC intervention: kill or drive off brigands in self-defence; round up and capture or kill brigands if approved by the authorities or in weakly governed/lawless areas; otherwise drag them to justice

PIRATES

Pirates are brigands of the seas - people with ships who steal from other people with ships, almost always by force and/or intimidation. Using a ship they can make off with substantially more cargo than a land brigand.

River pirates use, and target, boats rather than ships.

Expected TTRPG PC intervention: kill or drive off pirates in self-defence; hunt down and capture or kill pirates if approved by the authorities or on the open seas (depending on setting); otherwise drag them to justice

FREEBOOTERS

Freebooters or 'privateers' are people who pillage, plunder, raid, or capture the ships of other states, using their own ship - often a warship. Freebooters mostly attack merchant ships.

They are not technically pirates - they have been given license to act by their own state, either by blanket order, or by issuing something like a personal 'letter of marque' - an official commission authorising their actions. But another state's freebooters may be considered pirates and/or outlaws.

Corsairs are historically French freebooters.

Expected TTRPG PC intervention: kill or drive off freebooters in self-defence, and take their stuff; capturing them and dragging them to justice may be preferred in some settings

OUTLAWS

Outlaws are, literally, people who are officially outside the law. Outlawry is conferred as a criminal sentence or decree. An outlaw does not enjoy any of the legal protections of the law, including against killing. This opens outlaws up to mob justice, extrajudicial killing with impunity, and so on.

An outlaw might turn to brigandry, piracy, or marauding (if they weren't already).

In some contexts it might be not merely lawful but praiseworthy to kill an outlaw.

Outlawry is a form of unpersoning; in some contexts to give an outlaw any kind of support is illegal, akin to 'aiding and abetting'.

A desperado is a particularly bold or dangerous outlaw.

Expected TTRPG PC intervention: unlike with brigands or pirates, dealing with outlaws does not require - and usually cannot involve - any legal mechanisms. The unambiguously worst legal status has already been inflicted on them. The authorities are fine with a group of PCs doing anything to outlaws except tying them up and dumping them on the courthouse steps for 'justice'. There is no more justice to be done. This is something that can be hard for us modern people to understand: The law has no more official business with them.

BANDITS

The word 'bandit' is a little ambiguous, usually referring to a brigand but sometimes to an outlaw or a marauder.

MARAUDERS

A marauder is someone, usually an ex-soldier, who roves the countryside looting, plundering, pillaging, and sacking (related words which mean to unlawfully seize and/or destroy property). This is usually accomplished with or accompanied by violence, sometimes extreme forms like torture or terrorism. Marauders usually work in groups to accomplish this.

A marauder might also be called a plunderer or pillager.

Expected TTRPG PC intervention: kill or drive off marauders in self-defence; round up and capture or kill marauders if approved by the authorities or in weakly governed/lawless areas; otherwise drag them to justice

RAIDERS

Raiders are those from a culture/society/state in which raiding other cultures/societies/states is permissible, who do so. 'Raiding' here means travelling to a population centre to loot/plunder/pillage/sack as a marauder does. Raiding sometimes also has connotations of enslaving people.

Expected TTRPG PC intervention: raiders from other states usually don't enjoy legal protections; typically the expected thing is to kill them (reactively or proactively) in defence of the state and its people




THE MORE YOU KNOW

What does a lawful good paladin do with a brigand or pirate? Capture them to be tried. What does a lawful good paladin do with a raider? Dispense swift death. What does a lawful good paladin do with an outlaw? Well, now they have to decide what's 'good'.

Saturday, 29 July 2023

TTRPGs and the state, redux: Looting the dungeon

When I was talking about states recently (one, two), someone said they thought there was a more fundamental question.

In a classic fantasy tabletop role-playing game (TTRPG), why are there reasonably nearby zones of adventure (shorthand: dungeons) filled with hoards of treasure and magic items (shorthand: loot)?

Why hasn't the local viscount sent an expeditionary force of, say, a hundred men-at-arms and a dozen court wizards to burn down the goblin lair and snaffle up the coin and artefacts?

Now in this case, there are only weak parallels to draw from our world history: in our world, people are the apex predator and are easily capable of using basic technology to survive most naturally-occurring terrain challenges, meaning there haven't been 'zones of adventure' since the stone age, and when treasures lie buried or forgotten for ages, they're essentially never guarded by traps or environmental hazards. The closest parallel might be local raids against individuals or small groups (of citizens, outsiders, or neighbouring states) to seize their wealth, or larger-scale colonial or pseudo-colonial expeditions, like Hernán Cortés using military and technological advances to loot the Americas for silver and gold.

Still, given a reasonable chance of a large resource payout by directing military action against a somewhat nearby stronghold of non-citizens, especially a stronghold which the TTRPG's nature demands can be overcome by a small group of risk-taking specialists, it's clearly sensible for the state to do exactly that. Directing military action is one of the things a state is good at, almost by definition. If it's more of a 'crumbling trap-filled but otherwise undefended ruin' situation, then all the more reason for the state to use its unique advantages (centralised wealth, coordination of groups, compulsion of individuals) to get some specialists in there and extract the wealth.


I'm not going to go for thousands of words about the world-building problem this time, but I can think of some solutions of various quality.


Poor solutions:

  • The world doesn't make sense, so what. Abandon verisimilitude, embrace gameplay. I think this unambiguously makes for a weaker game, but that may not actually matter for e.g. beer-and-pretzels one-shots.
  • People work differently here. People in this world act differently, make different decisions, and in the role of the state, do different things. This essentially turns people into aliens and makes role-playing much harder.
  • There are naturally-occurring weak states. States in this world just have little collective power and low reach, so non-looted dungeons exist. It's really a non-answer, raising questions about why other states haven't taken over, and why the individuals capable of looting dungeons haven't risen to become state powers.
  • Present it as a mystery that the player characters can't solve. By positioning the issue front-and-centre, diegetically, it turns the players' asking "but why doesn't X?" from a complaint into a question. However, it's going to be extremely unsatisfying to then never give an answer. The GM would also have to be careful about things within the world accidentally becoming false "clues".


Unusual solutions:

  • States here are extremely wealthy and have low populations. The expected value of running a dungeon is high to an individual PC, but low or negative to a state (the cost of losing manpower is high and the wealth within is low compared to the state's existing resources). This can work in some settings. The state needs to have hoarded a lot of wealth, rather than this just being a rich society: otherwise the implication is that the gold pieces and magic wands you're looting are as common as pennies and screwdrivers.
  • The PCs are the agents of the state. I seldom see this as an integral assumption of the game itself, but it can naturally emerge in a campaign. If the PCs are strong enough, then they can be tempted or compelled to act as an arm of the state. Maybe there's a gold rush on dungeons at the moment, and the PCs are one of many small groups being sent to some of the smaller zones of adventure, while the knights and court wizards and levy archers and such are sent to the big ones.
  • It's a mystic underworld, innit. In this world, dungeons are haunting netherworlds that can only be broached by true archetypal heroes. The state has no way of acquiring those without removing their 'archetypal hero' status in the process, and this is all part of the setting metaphysics. Of course, it's still in the state's interest to encourage the existence of these heroic types and then tax them enormously when they come out of the dungeon, an angle that's almost implicit in OD&D but which I haven't seen much in games since then.
  • Dungeons grow faster than states can keep up with. A few settings, especially I think those influenced by computer RPGs, have organic/magical dungeons as entities which rapidly appear (maybe propagate themselves), grow, etc. The danger/reward can therefore be higher than, and move around faster than, people can collectively deal with. I would expect states to still do what they can, but 'roaming adventurers' and 'professional dungeon delvers' can become a plausible part of the setting.


Neat solutions:

  • The game is set after a massive cataclysm. Some disaster or combination thereof (war, plague, ice age, undead legions, minor apocalypse) has resulted in weak and disorganised states, low manpower, recent ruins, un-exploited situations, and maybe a dungeon 'gold rush' as civilisation bounces back.
  • The game is set after an apocalypse.  The same thing writ large; the PCs have emerged from a bunker into a post-apocalyptic world. The neat thing is that this not only provides a reason for weak or non-existent state powers, but the remaining bunkers can be natural zones of adventure, as can the post-apocalyptic wastes. Other bunkers can be safe cities to return to.
  • The state has bad information. The state is wrong about how dangerous the dungeon is, how lucrative the dungeon is, how close by the dungeon is, whether the dungeon exists, etc. It's easy for us in the information age to overlook just how slow it can be for accurate knowledge about the world to be discovered and propagated in pre-industrial times (although you'll need to scrutinise whether communication and divination magic are enough to overcome this). This solution works best when there's little to no history of dungeon discoveries. It's perfectly reasonable for a short dungeon-delving campaign to be propped up by, say, the PCs just happening on a collection of treasure maps.
  • We entertain the gods. All-powerful interventionist forces enjoy the world being a certain way, which happens to align with the GM's aims, and the result is a setting that's good for the TTRPG. Very easy to implement, and a conscientious GM will make it a discoverable premise within the world. The only question left is "why do the omnipotent forces have these preferences?" and there are lots of answers if they are remotely person-like in nature.

 

 

Are there games that have lit upon other notable solutions?

Thursday, 20 July 2023

"How is there a village witch?" Or, States Should Be Hoarding Magical Power: A Problem for World-Building

This is a long post. I'm going to lay out the structure in advance to help preserve the thread of the argument. The parts are:

  1. I list a bunch of things that we know about people and technology
  2. I note some common elements of how pre-industrial states work
  3. I establish various features that are typical in magic systems (especially those of fantasy TTRPGs)
  4. I claim certain desiderata for fantasy settings (especially those of fantasy TTRPGs)
  5. I point out how those things we know about people/pre-modern states and those commonalities of magic systems together keep us from achieving the desiderata :(
  6. I mention a few unfortunate corollaries to the problem


Thank you to the folks on Mastodon (https://dice.camp/@Periaptgames) who debated some of my initial thoughts on this topic and helped to firm up my ideas.

In the next post, I'll go on to present and analyse various possible solutions to this problem.


PART ONE: THINGS ABOUT PEOPLE AND TECHNOLOGY

People, as a whole, are optimisers and innovators and they recognise when things are useful and they do what they can to improve their lot in life. They are not (individually or collectively) perfect at any of these things, but most people are pretty good at them. If that weren't the case - if a setting's people didn't create new things, refine things, solve problems, use technologies, and try to make their own lives better - they wouldn't feel like people.

People, with rare exceptions, are great adopters of technology. When a farmer is presented with a new animal-drawn plough, he's not going to upgrade from pulling one himself if he can. If the three-field system is going to improve his harvest, he's going to switch to that. When metallurgy makes steel armour possible, soldiers are going to want that (if they can afford it). They're going to favour javelins over rocks and powder weapons over javelins and laser pistols over powder weapons.

For a useful technology to spread, all it needs is for people to do what they always do: travel and trade a bit, and adopt that technology once it is available nearby (by which I mean local people know it exists, know how to get it, and know how to use it). A more useful technology is likely to spread faster and see wider uptake. In the long term, it's practically tautological that useful technologies will see widespread use.

People's mindsets are affected by culture, and cultures are affected by their component people's mindsets. Ideas and perspectives change. Modern civilisations recognise many things as being utterly unacceptable that were everyday in many places and times: slavery, rule by might, execution of political opponents, torture for information or punishment, torture of animals for sport, etc.

When something is useful, some people will use it - even if the thing is regarded as terrifying, or gross, or unethical, or dangerous. Sometimes if something is discovered to be useful, the culture will change so that the negative valence is reduced or disappears.

There are enough people who enjoy the benefits of power that, in every place and time, SOMEONE will find a way to be in charge. Ruthless and strong-willed people and people with a leg up (in power terms) will tend to be the ones who end up in charge.


PART TWO: THINGS ABOUT PRE-INDUSTRIAL STATES

I think it is realistic to view states (maybe excepting some states very recently in history) as primarily a product of, and a tool to perpetuate, individuals or groups attempting to monopolise organised violence. All that is needed for a state to form is that someone wins the competition of applying violence to get their way. In early peoples, better nutrition and a touch of ruthlessness might be enough to tip the balance: the big mean guy gets the best food and develops the best muscles and, as the guy who can beat the snot out of everyone else, sets the rules. He leverages this to make use of other people's labour to get weapons and armour and housing and the best food for his children, and all of a sudden you have the start of the institution of military aristocracy which essentially all early states comprise.

Side note: I think it's actually safe to generalise 'the state is an attempt to monopolise organised violence' to 'the state is an attempt to control as much as possible of the tools of power: organised violence, formal alliances, wealth and taxes, land ownership, high-calorie and nutritionally dense foods, education, administrative functionality, military technology and the people who make it, infrastructure, personal security, etc'.

I am not going to provide a lot of arguments in support of this view; I think it is more or less self-evident. As a source I will pass on a recommendation originally from https://acoup.blog/ for Patricia Crone's book, 'Pre-Industrial Societies: Anatomy of the Pre-Modern World'.

So, individuals are motivated to use organised violence as a tool to improve their own life, and the lives of the people close to them (spouse, children, other family, friends, cronies, clan, caste, backers, etc). In pre-modern history, the mechanics of that basically go like this:

  1. Organised violence gets you control of fertile land and other people's labour
  2. Control of fertile land and other people's labour gets you a food/wealth surplus
  3. Food/wealth surplus, possibly with an intermediate step of 'trade', gets you supporters and specialists who improve your life by providing things like arts and entertainment, medicine, physical security, high-quality goods, robust shelter, etc

I'm not saying that the state is perfect at using organised violence and other tools of power to amass resources and improve the lives of its components (people in the military aristocracy), but it is almost certainly better at that than anybody else in the vicinity.

When a thing is both scarce and desirable, the people who succeed in using organised violence and other levers of power (i.e., the state) will usually get that thing. In practise, the outcome may not be "the state has all of the thing" but it's probably at least "the state has disproportionately much of the thing and tries to prevent its enemies getting the thing".

When the scarce desirable thing is a useful military technology, all of this is doubly important, because states that don't secure enough of the scarce desirable military technology will be destroyed or outcompeted by states that do.

I should clarify that I'm using "the state gets the thing" as a shorthand. It can mean that the state "possesses the thing", but also "oversees the thing, can demand the thing from its populace at will, indirectly controls who gets the thing and who doesn't, limits access to the thing, prevents its enemies getting the thing, etc."

Finally, let's consider what happens when "the thing" is a person, or a person's service. There are lots of different methods the state can use to "get the thing" then. One way to categorise these methods is:
(a) Positive incentives
(b) Soft or hard coercion
(c) Cultural programming
Or as I'll be flippantly calling them, Benefits, Blackmail, and Brainwashing (BBBs).

Let's take a look at three examples of the state acquiring military technologies using BBBs.

1. Men-at-arms (or knights, i.e., men-at-arms with a title) were a useful military technology. They were raised to fight from childhood. This often took the form of a child being sent off to be a page at some other knight's property. By raising a man-at-arms to serve their liege you are culturally programming them; you are providing positive incentives (it is prestigious and beats the base case of being a starving peasant); there is some coercion involved (the father, also a man-at-arms, is obliged to fight for his liege - note that his child is effectively a hostage of one of his liege's allies).

2. Longbowman were a useful military technology, famously so in medieval England. Cultural programming in the form of legislation and social expectation required young men to do archery practise and banned certain other more 'frivolous' pastimes. Armies were (before the rise of professional armies) distributed, hierarchical, and mustered when needed: a village or estate or shire would muster a certain number of archers to accompany their liege when he went at his liege's command. There was little element of choice (so, coercion). Soldiers were, in theory, paid, and the major 'perk' of the job was looting (a positive incentive).

3. Arrows were a useful military technology. The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England reveal that makers of pattens (wooden overshoes) were forbidden from using aspen, which was regarded as the best wood for arrows, on pain of a (colossal) 100 shilling penalty. This was an Act of the Parliament of Henry V in 1416, in response to a petition by arrow-makers cautioning that source wood was running low; the same Act required arrow-makers to sell arrows at lower prices. As the primary buyer of arrows, the English Crown had a huge interest in manufacture of cheap, plentiful, good quality arrows. Other legislation penalised low-quality steel in arrowheads, dictated what were acceptable feathers to use in fletching, and so on. Artisans were financially both incentivised and coerced to provide the Crown with arrows.

An aside

In early polities, there was usually very little difference between the state and the individual ruler, who usually had final say in matters of legislation, judiciary, religion, taxation, and warfare. That's why I've been saying things like "the ruler is the state" or "the state is made up of a few ruthless powerful people". This means that the ruler's personal wealth was, essentially, indistinguishable from the state's wealth.

Contrary to popular belief, historical rulers weren't always the most wealthy of the people in their land. Often this was because cultures treated exorbitant spending by rulers as a sign of nobility ("largesse"); sometimes it was because of financial mismanagement. There are lots of examples of rulers having to borrow money and lots of examples of merchants "as rich as princes". Wealth was a signifier of military power but it wasn't necessary for it because of, amongst other things, BBBs: if the state itself was skint it could often still rely on members of its carefully cultivated ruling class and their cronies to provide soldiers and equipment. Why? Because those supporters stood to benefit from doing so, could be coerced if needed, and the culture they grew up in said that they should as part of fealty and vassalage.



PART THREE: THINGS ABOUT MAGIC SYSTEMS

Here are some things I think are very common in magic systems, and nearly ubiquitous in TTRPG magic systems:

1. At least some people can use magic.

  • Using magic may entail casting spells, applying magical powers, producing magical items, calling down miracles, creating magical materials, subverting existing magic, waving wands, performing lengthy rituals, negotiating for the intervention of magical entities, or whatever.

2. Magic is at least somewhat consistent or predictable.

  • A magic-user has at least some expectation about what is likely to happen when they use magic, and are correct more often than they're not.
  • (As opposed to there being a simple dichotomy of "use magic and something completely out of your control happens / don't use magic".)

 3. Either magic is capable of unique feats, or it can improve on mundane feats, or both.

  • By "unique feats" I mean bring about an outcome that isn't possible to bring about with mundane work using the non-magical technologies available.
  • By "improve on mundane feats" I mean reproduce those feats in a way that is strictly better along at least one axis (time, effort, cost, expedience, secrecy, scale, durability, whatever) even if it is worse along other axes. If you can snap your fingers and conjure a stone wall but doing so exhausts you worse than if you'd built the wall by hand, that still counts - that's a useful tool in the toolbox because it has emergency and military applications.

I think that together, these features are enough for us to call magic "a useful technology". Notably, if either (1) or (2) is false, it's not a technology, because people can't reproducibly use it for specific effects. If (3) is false, it's not useful: some irrational/ignorant/desperate/curious people might get involved with magic, but it has pretty much no worthwhile impact on the world.

The conclusion: in most magic systems, and in almost all TTRPG magic systems, magic is a useful technology.

Let's add that it is also very common for magic to be a useful military technology, which is to say that in almost every setting where magic is useful, it has useful direct or indirect military applications. I think it is very easy to understate this.

For example, in just core fifth edition D&D (which I really doubt is an outlier in this regard), the following are cantrips (i.e. trivial spells infinitely repeatable by even the lowest tier of mage):

  • Any number of ranged weapons that require no ammunition, some of them invisible or inflicting lingering harm
  • Instant lights for signalling or night operations
  • Perfect mending of damaged weapons, armour pieces, or fortifications
  • Instant fire
  • Absolutely secure messages capable of crossing 120 feet and minor obstacles
  • Brief improved resilience, aim, or ability for a soldier
  • Instant, guaranteed effective, battlefield trauma medicine
  • Tripling the volume of orders delivered by voice

Availability of even a small number of these technologies would have significantly changed military tactics (and in some cases, operations) for most of pre-industrial history. Once you start getting into level one spells, which the worst tier of mage can cast a few times per day, you have the potential to radically change pretty much every aspect of warfare.


PART FOUR: DESIDERATA FOR FANTASY SETTINGS

We generally want a magic system and a fantasy setting (especially for the purposes of TTRPGs) to have the following features. This is of course a subjective claim, but a conservative one; I don't think any of them will be controversial.

1. Magic is neither incredibly scarce (three spellcasters in a kingdom of a million) or incredibly common (9 out of 10 people learn a little magic; half go on to specialise as full time mages).

2. There are magic-users in roles that aren't focused on military power, intensive economic support, state administration, spycraft, and political influence. That is, there can be hedge wizards, village witches, small-time mages, adventuring sorcerers, reclusive warlocks, runaway apprentices, obsessive thaumaturgy wonks, small town militia magicians, travelling entertainers with a knack for illusion, magical confectioners, dabbling alchemists, toothache-cure-makers, and so on. To put it another way, we want it to be possible that most magic-users - say, 80%, or even 90% or 95% - are private individuals, rather than being co-opted into the apparatus of the state.

3. It's possible for a state to exist that's not run exclusively or near-exclusively by magic-users at the top (although some might be). That is, the state being a magocracy is possible but not necessary.

4. The world has verisimilitude. It feels real; things in it make sense; its rules are self-consistent and in principle discoverable; things work like in our real world unless there's a specific reason they don't; people with power mostly aren't holding the Idiot Ball; consequences logically follow from antecedents.

Some specific settings won't care about (1) or (2) or (3). I think they're rare, especially in fantasy TTRPGs. Some game tables won't care about (4). That's sufficiently antithetical to my TTRPG preferences that I'm not going to consider it further (sorry).


PART FIVE: THE PROBLEM

Now let's synthesise what we've laid out. You've probably already seen where this is going and are wishing I'd done it in half the word count.

Importing the following premises from earlier...

  1. People optimise, innovate, spread and adopt technology, and want to use it to make their lives better.
  2. States form naturally, and where they don't, other states take over.
  3. Pre-industrial states are individuals or groups attempting to control as much as possible of the levers of power: principally organised violence, but also auxiliary things like "useful military technologies and the people who create/invent/maintain wield those technologies."
  4. States are not perfect at getting and keeping control of power, but are generally decent at it. They're made up of (often ruthless) people, who when presented with a big juicy prize will make sweeping changes to get it, including changes to society/culture/the state apparatus. States who aren't good at controlling the levers of power are replaced over time - one way or another - by states that are.
  5. Controlling the levers of power may mean possessing them, overseeing them, the capacity to demand them from parts of the populace at will, limiting access to them, denying them to enemies, etc.
  6. The state uses what I flippantly called BBBs - Benefits, Blackmail, and Brainwashing - to control the human component of the levers of power.
Then in most interesting fantasy TTRPG settings...
 
7. Some people can use magic in a way that is predictable or consistent, and there are notable benefits to using magic; therefore magic is a useful technology. In most setting's magic is a VERY useful technology with direct applications as a lever of power that may be wielded for administration, military action, subjugation, communication, economic improvement, information gathering, life extension, trust building and verification, cost avoidance, etc.
 
8. The setting is verisimilitudinous, magic is a modestly scarce resource, the state doesn't control all (or even most) magic, and magic-users themselves don't (necessarily) run everything.

My argument is that (1-7) appear to preclude (8).

(1-7) imply that the only plausible way for magic to be distributed amongst people is for magic-users to be substantially under the thumb of the state, or to themselves comprise the state.

Magic is, basically, too desirable. The state has too much interest in magic as a useful technology. Mundane or mixed magical/mundane state powers will use the power they have amassed to get control of magic and magic-users in various small ways, thereby getting more power, which they will use to grab more magic, and repeat, continuing to consolidate power in that way. Magic has so much upside that there's basically no case where you, the overlord, say: "Oh that guy who can conjure wine, send secret messages across the country, improve crops, change the weather, heal grievous wounds, and set things on fire with his mind? I already have some guys who can do that so I'm happy to just let him do his own thing."

There's a natural selection problem implied by premises (3,4,7). If powerful/ruthless people fail to seize such an important technology as magic, then other powerful/ruthless people who succeed will eat their lunch (in the case of individuals, usurp them personally; in the case of kingdoms, invade and loot them; in the case of economies, outcompete them; in the case of cultures, destroy them).

That's if magic-users can be bullied by state actors. Alternatively, if magic is SO powerful that mundane states can't get leverage over magic-users and thereby acquire them as useful technology, then the only plausible system of government is magocracy: the most powerful/ruthless local mages will seize control, because they are people and want power and resources too, becoming rulers/patrons with less powerful/ruthless mages as vassals/clients, and so on down a hierarchy until you reach mundane subordinates. If magical power overwhelms mundane power, all it takes is one magic-user to get the ball rolling. People tend to form traditions and institutions, which means that the only thing particularly likely to overturn a magocracy once established is a paradigm-shifting outside force: mages stop being born, invaders from an even more powerful magocracy, etc.

I think the most plausible world where (1-7) are true is one where (8) is not: some enormous percentage of magic-users are courtiers, high-status servants, mercenaries, bureaucrats or otherwise employed by or involved in the state. Even in a world with unusually disorganised/incompetent/poor/incoherent state apparatuses, you're going to end up with either "most wizards are officials/vassals" or "wizards are mostly in charge".

  • For every mage dabbling in orchard magic or enchanting baskets, there's ten mage-knights specialised in military magic.
  • For every town warlock delighting children and crowds with illusions and fancies, there's three doing the same in the duke's court.
  • For every village witch whipping up pox cures, there's surely a dozen dedicated to healing the nobility.
  • For every wandering sorcerer with a lightning spell in their pocket, expect to see a score of them in the king's retinue.
  • For every lonely wizarding tower, there's a whole magical academy that's for the children of the ruling military aristocracy and their cronies.

What does the process of state investment in magic look like? Well, we would expect the kinds of BBBs we're familiar with from history. People in power have historically been...

  • ...willing to seize and indoctrinate children, so if children are detectably born with magic, that's what happens.
  • ...willing to sponsor and regulate education where it suits them, so if magic is a studied ability, that's what happens.
  • ...willing to search for what they want and pay exorbitantly to get it, so if magic is a subtly learned knack, that's what happens.
  • ...willing to integrate with religious institutions to get an advantage, so if magic is a divine gift, that's what happens.
  • ...happy to funnel resources disproportionately to their own children, so if magic is sparked by special circumstances, that's what happens.
  • ...able to change laws, sculpt societies, and mandate cultural changes so that people have particular characteristics and feel a duty towards the state, so if magic is only granted to the 'worthy', that's what happens.

Or, remembering that people are often innovative and ruthless and cunning, we would expect the state to find new BBBs better-tailored to fit whatever process it is by which some people end up as magic-users. In practise, I would expect there to be combinations of different kinds of pressure.

Benefits Positive incentives

  • "Cleric of war? Best opportunities are in the queen's army. Cleric of the sea? Everyone knows the best opportunities are in the queen's fleet. Cleric of ironfounding? The queen's workshops, easy."
  • "The wizard guild's the de facto leader of the city. If you reach a position in the hall, there's a gold chain and a monthly feast and districting power. And it only gets better from there."
  • "The duke's amassed so many mages that the ducal court is a place of plenty. You can get a levitating pillow and a month's conjured wine for just what he pays you for a week of work. It'd be worth it even without the food and housing, let alone the sheer prestige."
  • "Marriage prospects? I guess, but I tell you they get a LOT better if you've done your customary stint of service to the emperor."

Blackmail Soft or hard coercion

  • "Tax on mages outside the king's service is thirty shillings annually. I hear it's going up to forty next year."
  • "Oh, you're a mage on your requisite annual pilgrimage to the imperial capital to provide a day's magic to the crown? Me too! I'm thinking of moving close to the city. There's plenty of work to be had there and of course the pilgrimage would be minutes, not weeks. Oh, you're thinking of moving closer too?"
  • "We're from the enforcer mage agency. We know where you live. Here's your invitation to attend the earl's staff for two years. The pay's good. When you get back your family will be right here, safe and sound."
  • "Join the royal magical academy without a noble sponsor? You must be out of your mind. Get lost."

Brainwashing Cultural programming

  • "If you're a mage, you can't call yourself an upstanding citizen of Somewhereistan unless you put in your customary crown service. People would spit on you in the street if they knew you dodged service!"
  • "When they found out I had magic as a child, they bought me from my parents and sent me to the local baroness to learn spells, of course. Tutelage, opportunities, and fealty to a powerful woman? I shudder to think of how my life would be if they hadn't found me."
  • "Ares has called for a holy war! All men-at-arms, mages, and anybody who's ever strung a bow is marching under the temple banner! Join us or turn your back on the gods!"
  • "Legionnaires serve for twenty years, but you can choose to switch to civic magic after twelve in the magical legion. Anyway, if your number gets called, then smile, boy - that's our whole people's future on your shoulders."


PART SIX: UNFORTUNATE COROLLARIES

The problem I've described has some additional emergent issues for a typical TTRPG fantasy setting.

Corollary 1. If you're buying magic items, you're doing so from the state, at the state's discretion (although grey markets and black markets for magic would likely exist, because pre-industrial states tend to be corrupt and inefficient). The same is analogously true for access to other kinds of magic (buying spells, casters for hire, spellswords, magical advice or prophecy, etc): you're limited to that which is permitted by the state. Access to other people's magic is only possible when the state gets more benefit (typically wealth) from selling that magic than it does by using it for itself. All of this is of course a huge issue for the flavour of a setting (but, ironically, it can actually help with certain other problems in TTRPG design).

Corollary 2. If there are dungeons, zones of adventure, outlaws, mysterious outsiders, tribal demihumans, ruins, and so on, they don't have magic items, because the state has too much of an interest in extracting those magic items via a state-organised expeditionary force. The only exception is when the entity is so incredibly powerful and dangerous that it's not worth the risk of the expedition, in which case what chance do the PCs have? A horde of orcs with some magical artefacts implies the state is too weak to find and kill them, which implies that horde of orcs is a burgeoning state itself.

Corollary 3. If a PC wants to be a magic-user, they are presumably under the state's control, and all that entails. Alternatively, they are an outlaw or pariah or being actively headhunted, and all THAT entails. Alternatively, this is a world where magic is too powerful to be controlled by states, and what you have in the group is effectively a demigod - and all THAT entails.

Corollary 4. Again, magic is a very useful military technology. How much does it cost for the state (i.e., some local knight or noble) to train a magic-user compared to a man-at-arms? In both cases, you're training a specialist, probably from a young age, probably for a decade or more, probably with associated equipment costs. Raising a man-at-arms was EXPENSIVE. Magic changes the nature of warfare so much that in typical TTRPG settings, I'd rather have a level one magic-user than a dozen men-at-arms. In which case even in the (surprising, to me) case where raising and equipping a war mage is TEN TIMES the cost of raising and equipping a man-at-arms, you're going to see retinues of forty war mages plus ten men-at-arms rather than ten war mages plus forty men-at-arms. This is probably contrary to most people's fantasy aesthetic.

Corollary 5. In most TTRPG settings, magic has opportunity costs and specialisation is possible. If you rain down purple fire on the enemy, that's one less use of Enchant Sponge Cake or whatever. For some kinds of magic-user, having access to Enchant Sponge Cake means not having access to a different spell today; for other kinds, it means locking in Enchant Sponge Cake as an option for the foreseeable future. So the objection "there aren't enough mages around to replace men-at-arms and serve en masse as bureaucrats in the imperial city" is actually just another way of saying, "because there's not enough magic to go around, there is an absolutely massive pressure from the state upon mages to specialise in those things that the state wants most: military magic, economic magic, and magic that can do stuff for the nobility that they can't get through mundane means".


CONCLUSION:

I wish I didn't believe this argument was valid. It makes world-building difficult!

Don't despair, though. In the next post I'm going to be examining possible solutions.

Table Tuesday

It's Ten-sided [dice] Table Tuesday! Here's three dice tables for your Game Mastering convenience.   1d10 only situationally useful ...