Throughout this piece, I have scattered AI-generated Artwork that I think captures something of the spirit of the kind of setting I’m trying to create- magically supercharged, alien, and hauntingly familiar, and charged with a sense of the divine, even at low levels.
It occurred to me that your point about an Earth-sized world being too small for, e.g. dragons, giants, etc., might not be true. Aren't dinosaurs somewhat of a counter-example? I guess the biggest dinosaur predators (maybe) aren't quite as big a dragons, but the biggest dinosaur herbivores seem much bigger. (Giants seem trickier.)
I really enjoyed this post tho. I've been engaged in my own D&D worldbuilding (mostly in my mind) for decades now – and I still haven't played even a single 'real' game! But I find the activity to be a really interesting way to discover and investigate a very broad swath of knowledge. (How do goblins craft their clothes?) It's also a fun puzzle (for me anyways) to try and 'rationalize' the rules and features of various setting's worlds to make some kind of sense!
Dinosaurs would only be a counter-example if they had the territoriality of D&D apex creatures. In a lot of D&D settings, it's implied that a single dragon or giant or ... is the most fearsome predator for an area of hundreds of square kilometers around it, which means that you quickly run out of space.
It seems reasonable that dinosaurs _might_ be territorial – lots of birds and reptiles (e.g. crocodilians) are territorial. And even if every dragon or giant had a territory of 1,000 square miles, an Earth-sized planet with roughly the land area of Earth (about 57 million square miles) could thus contain 57,000 territories.
With respect to dragons, but maybe giants too, they don't seem to be (AFAIK) 'active predators'. In the LotR books, dragons don't seem to need to eat (or drink) regularly like other non-magical creatures. Smaug seems to have been content to 'hibernate' atop his horde for a very long time! From a 'worldbuilding' perspective that even might make some sense given other 'facts', e.g. that dragons couldn't possibly _physically_ fly (and thus their flight is at least partially magical).
Relatedly, all of this could be altered, and potentially significantly, depending on how much consistency one aims for between worldbuilding and game mechanics. As an example, in related fiction, dragons are extremely overpowered even compared to a significant military force, but per game mechanics they would be fairly easily overwhelmed by an opposing force with sufficient 'action economy'.
All that being 'said', I don't disagree that a lot of D&D worldbuilding seems to almost entirely ignore any kind of consistent (let alone plausible) ecology.
Your claim about warfare is probably not true (or at least has an implicit assumption):
"In a post scarcity world in which it is possible to create food by thinking about it, fortifications are exceedingly difficult to break through seiges.
This tips the balance of power to defensive warfare, and makes conquest by conventional means exceedingly difficult. The result, though, isn’t the absence of warfare, rather warfare tends to take other forms:"
What this assumes is that defensive fortifications trump offensive methods. Sieges are relevant in, say, early medieval warfare because delivering an assault is extremely costly. Similarly, the great fortifications of the 19th century exist because armaments are not quite able to dismantle them. But when offensive armaments can defeat fortifications, those fortifications are never put under siege because they can be overrun rapidly.
So, what about the world makes defensive fortifications able to defeat offensive armaments?
There's another question underlying this, which is the *purpose* of the defensive fortifications. Typically, a fortification asserts control over an extended territory (medieval European castles with garrisoned cavalries can effectively deny supply trains) or a key logistical interchange (a walled town defends a port or major railway / road intersection) or defend a border (typically making use of terrain constrains e.g. mountain passes).
But the last one is less relevant when there is network of gates, as you describe. With the level of magical mobility you describe, the density of routes going into any given interchange node should be lower, since you don't have as pressing needs to take advantage of the economies of scale that produce really dense central nodes in transport / logistics systems. Defending key logistical interchanges is potentially less significant, then.
So, if defensive fortifications are much less significant, it seems this undermines your suggested switch to covert arrangements or cultural interventions. I would say that the opposite implies this far better! If offensive armaments are so substantial and so great that large organised forces are decimated rapidly (either immediately or after attriting opposing defensive magical resources), then large organised forces are no longer viable. Imagine a world where we had some nuke-lite, where it only killed large numbers of people, but caused no physical damage and had no long-term consequences – and it is relatively cheap or accessible for the average state. In that world, large mobilisations are probably unviable in peer conflicts. (Notably, asymmetric warfare might see large mobilisations still.)
> Early humans constantly heard the voices of gods in their consciousness, but three millennia ago these voices just stopped
I love the Julian Jaynes influence here - I've always wanted to see some fiction that takes his idea seriously.
It occurred to me that your point about an Earth-sized world being too small for, e.g. dragons, giants, etc., might not be true. Aren't dinosaurs somewhat of a counter-example? I guess the biggest dinosaur predators (maybe) aren't quite as big a dragons, but the biggest dinosaur herbivores seem much bigger. (Giants seem trickier.)
I really enjoyed this post tho. I've been engaged in my own D&D worldbuilding (mostly in my mind) for decades now – and I still haven't played even a single 'real' game! But I find the activity to be a really interesting way to discover and investigate a very broad swath of knowledge. (How do goblins craft their clothes?) It's also a fun puzzle (for me anyways) to try and 'rationalize' the rules and features of various setting's worlds to make some kind of sense!
Your bit about 'destinies' reminds me of "A Practical Guide to Evil – Do Wrong Right" –https://practicalguidetoevil.wordpress.com/
Dinosaurs would only be a counter-example if they had the territoriality of D&D apex creatures. In a lot of D&D settings, it's implied that a single dragon or giant or ... is the most fearsome predator for an area of hundreds of square kilometers around it, which means that you quickly run out of space.
It seems reasonable that dinosaurs _might_ be territorial – lots of birds and reptiles (e.g. crocodilians) are territorial. And even if every dragon or giant had a territory of 1,000 square miles, an Earth-sized planet with roughly the land area of Earth (about 57 million square miles) could thus contain 57,000 territories.
With respect to dragons, but maybe giants too, they don't seem to be (AFAIK) 'active predators'. In the LotR books, dragons don't seem to need to eat (or drink) regularly like other non-magical creatures. Smaug seems to have been content to 'hibernate' atop his horde for a very long time! From a 'worldbuilding' perspective that even might make some sense given other 'facts', e.g. that dragons couldn't possibly _physically_ fly (and thus their flight is at least partially magical).
Relatedly, all of this could be altered, and potentially significantly, depending on how much consistency one aims for between worldbuilding and game mechanics. As an example, in related fiction, dragons are extremely overpowered even compared to a significant military force, but per game mechanics they would be fairly easily overwhelmed by an opposing force with sufficient 'action economy'.
All that being 'said', I don't disagree that a lot of D&D worldbuilding seems to almost entirely ignore any kind of consistent (let alone plausible) ecology.
Your claim about warfare is probably not true (or at least has an implicit assumption):
"In a post scarcity world in which it is possible to create food by thinking about it, fortifications are exceedingly difficult to break through seiges.
This tips the balance of power to defensive warfare, and makes conquest by conventional means exceedingly difficult. The result, though, isn’t the absence of warfare, rather warfare tends to take other forms:"
What this assumes is that defensive fortifications trump offensive methods. Sieges are relevant in, say, early medieval warfare because delivering an assault is extremely costly. Similarly, the great fortifications of the 19th century exist because armaments are not quite able to dismantle them. But when offensive armaments can defeat fortifications, those fortifications are never put under siege because they can be overrun rapidly.
So, what about the world makes defensive fortifications able to defeat offensive armaments?
There's another question underlying this, which is the *purpose* of the defensive fortifications. Typically, a fortification asserts control over an extended territory (medieval European castles with garrisoned cavalries can effectively deny supply trains) or a key logistical interchange (a walled town defends a port or major railway / road intersection) or defend a border (typically making use of terrain constrains e.g. mountain passes).
But the last one is less relevant when there is network of gates, as you describe. With the level of magical mobility you describe, the density of routes going into any given interchange node should be lower, since you don't have as pressing needs to take advantage of the economies of scale that produce really dense central nodes in transport / logistics systems. Defending key logistical interchanges is potentially less significant, then.
So, if defensive fortifications are much less significant, it seems this undermines your suggested switch to covert arrangements or cultural interventions. I would say that the opposite implies this far better! If offensive armaments are so substantial and so great that large organised forces are decimated rapidly (either immediately or after attriting opposing defensive magical resources), then large organised forces are no longer viable. Imagine a world where we had some nuke-lite, where it only killed large numbers of people, but caused no physical damage and had no long-term consequences – and it is relatively cheap or accessible for the average state. In that world, large mobilisations are probably unviable in peer conflicts. (Notably, asymmetric warfare might see large mobilisations still.)