Why Don't Dragons Run Everything?

 More musings on my "default" D&D world.  

Dragons, they live for millennia (if not immortal), mighty, and they are of great intelligence and magical power.  In addition, they are portrayed as being in possession of massive amounts of wealth and magical items.  So why are they not the major movers and shakers?

Well, many settings have played with this idea.  Dragons are behind a lot of politics, banking, nations, etc.  While I think those are interesting ideas and twists to play with as a DM; they don't reeeeeally fit into the default presentation in classic D&D and the media from which it is derived.

If we accept that as being the case, then what forces keep draconic power in check?

First; Dragons, while mighty, need a LOT of sleep.  I think of them like cats in that respect.  They will sleep for years and years if circumstances permit, especially when it comes time to move up an age category.  This keeps them separated from the goings on of the lesser beings.

Second; Most other races are too short lived.  Most cultures they may try to influence through direct means simply change too quickly from the point of view a dragon.  You make a political or financial arrangement with a Human King, and the next time you visit, his grandson has no idea what you are talking about.  Then out of frustration or vengeance, the dragon goes on a rampage; next thing you know, heroes are called in to deal with it.

Dwarves just lock themselves in a mountain until you go away.  Elves, they suffer a lot of the same headaches trying to deal with the short lived races.

Its not much, but it is just enough to hang a lampshade on...

 

Hot Takes: Many Saints of Newark

Finally got around to watching The Many Saints of Newark.

With out getting to into the plot, I would say as a stand alone story, it is kind of meh.  Enjoyable to watch, but it does not really come together on its own.

I think it works better as a part of a rewatch between "Kennedy and Heidi" and the final three episodes of the show.  It really is structured as more of a flashback episode of the show than its own story.  Just too many moments with other bits of the Sopranos world and away from the main plot/character.  

If nothing else it serves as a fun little easter egg hunt.

Betty Crocker Modules

What makes a good module?

If you are a publisher, then the answer is: sales.  Which means you have to make something that appeals to the largest cross section as possible.

• DMs who don't need much story, but don't have time to put together encounters.locales.
  
• DMs that need ideas for stories.
• DMs that need all of it.
• A whole spectrum of consumers who need different things.
  
• And folks who just like to read through them like fiction

These needs will often be working in opposition.   Some consumers will want detailed writeups of NPC characteristics and relations, other want a quick flow chart.  Some want fantastic maps of encounter areas and tactics, others are good with basic info.  In the end all of these things compete for page count.  In the case of the last group; what makes for quick/easy reference at the table (a quick spoiler-ific overview of the plot, charts, tables, references) does not make a good read.

For me at least, I prefer something closer to a "bullet points" version of module content.  Quick overview of the expected events, distinct chunks for any main info I need, maps, locations, NPCs relations.  When I am reviewing/prepping/running a module I want to have as much of the info at hand when I need it, not come across it in process or need to flip through it. Finally some references/indexes at the back.  Some of this will necessitate repetition of content (which undoubtedly would bother other consumers, those pages could be MORE CONTENT!!)

So with the how, out of the way, WHAT do I want in a module....it depends.  Sometimes I have a hook and events, and I just need a cool location for the villain of macguffin.  But in those cases, I can usually pull something out of any decently presented module or adventure.  The real trick is when I am in the need for a good set of events/plot, usually with interesting NPCs/ interconnecting elements.  In those cases though, I am very much in the tell, don't show model.  Give me flow charts showing how stuff connects,  give me the elevator pitch of the plot.  Don't make me work for those details (that's why I am paying for this).

In the end, I think modules are best when they are in the same zone as a box of Betty Crocker mix.  I don't want to make a cake or brownies from scratch, but I also don't to just buy a pre-made brownie.  Give me the basic mix, let me toss in my own ingredients, and have it fresh made at home.

Hiatus?

I started this blog in part as something to try during Covid/Quarantine.  I also just wanted to put the ideas that were bouncing around in my head and notebooks out into the world.

Things are opening back up (at least around here) and it is starting to get busy.  Also, I kind of put out the things I had in my mind.

Plus, at least as of now, no one is seeing this.

So, this will be a break until I get more flashes of inspiration and time.

Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer, Warlock Meanings

 Came across this interesting Reddit post on the difference between the various terms that have come to be associated with the magic user classes:

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9lywhx/would_the_different_words_for_magic_user_ie/e7dpf0l/  

Like many things involving language and academic, I am sure there is plenty of room for nitpicks, but it gives a nice extra bit of depth to the terms beyond their current game mechanic uses.

Pasted below for posterity.

Terrain: Trees

I have previously talked about my terrain use, and the Covid lockdown has given me time to work on crafting.   One of the things I had been banging my head against is trees.

Trees are fun scatter terrain to use in a wilderness encounter, but unlike rocks, buildings, etc. they are tricky to do/work with.

Nice trees are a lot of work and fiddly/fragile and possibly shed. Easy trees don't always look that great or are kind of "blobby".   DwarvenForge's recent tree offerings are great, but pricey to get a good bit of woods.

I tried a few things based on the work of some very talented crafters but none quite clicked with me.  Random twigs from the yard were OK for autumn/winter trees, but also fragile.

So, going back to basics, I asked why I wanted the trees.  While dioramas/displays are nice, I want them for miniature play.  That being the case, their primary role is to denote the location of significantly large trees, those that would be useful for cover or climbing.  

So it occurred to me.  The leaves and branches are the problem with all their fiddly bits.  For mini combat I really just need the trunks.  A number of nice trunks and spots for minis to sit up in the "branches" would be a lot easier to craft and end up with something that can resist the rigors of play and transport.

So this is what I ended up with:

These are made of blocks and shafts of xps foam cut down by hand.  The edges are cut and scraped to give a bark appearance and the whole trunk of the tree is squished, twisted, and bent to give it an naturalistic contour.  The whole thing is glues to some dense cardboard for weight and finished with grit and sawdust.  The rest is craft paint.

I want to enhance this with a few bits of clump terrain of bushes and tight packed small trees. But that will have to come later.

Fancy/leafy trees for show clearly need to be a separate item from "toss if a bin" scatter terrain.

Hot Takes!?!

Just some random things bopping around my brain:

Players and Monsters (NPCs) SHOULD follow the same rules (mostly).

    I see a back and forth about if the decision to have monsters/npcs use the same rules as players is one of the drawbacks of 3e style D&D.   Usually this is in relation to how much time it takes to make adversaries in the game.  To my mind, this sidesteps the issue.  To me, the issue is how complex the rules are in the first place.  That's not to say that you can't take some shortcuts where adversaries are involved, but the basic building block should line up.

 

D&D Movie

    So we got another one coming.  I think I only saw about half of any of the 2000s era movies.  There are a plethora of movies (old and new) that encapsulate D&D style fantasy.  However, I think the most "D&D" move we have is The Princess Bride.  It is a compelling fantasy story, that is framed, interrupted, and to some extent impacted by those whom the audience is watching experience it.  A D&D movie (as opposed to a fantasy movie using D&D IP) would be wise to borrow this framework.

4e D&D

 Not going to entertain an edition war, but there are some things I don't get.  I appreciate that they likely had a number of business constraints impacting design, and chose to go with a "from the ground up" approach to the design.  That said, if one of the goals was to eliminate the 15 minute adventuring day, why still daily powers?  All the messing about with Healing Surges, why not just reduce total HP and make HP "per encounter"?  Its like when a bit of software gets a re-build, it does not necessarily fix the problems that were intended, and likely introduces new unintended ones.

WandaVision

    So, overall I enjoyed it (though asked alot of the audience to stick around the first 3 episodes).  The ending fell flat for me for two reasons.  1. typically hero vs their dark mirror fight.  2. Did not deliver on things is was strongly teasing.  Not that it matters, but a few things i would change to to keep the main bits in tact, but feel more satisfying to me.

• Agatha doesn't want to steal Wanda's powers; she wants to turn her Vader style.  Pretty much everything happens the same, but when Agatha realized Wands still wants to wallow, she leaves in disappointing disgust, "You'll come around eventually" and leaves the Darkhold as her calling card.
• Also Agatha mentions something about "oh you like my Pietro stand in?  He is something I found in my travels....."  At least leave it open about if that means multiverses or not instead of making a boner joke.
  
• SWORD boss does not go full cartoon evil, and instead stays in charge.  He is better as a foil for Monica and SPEAR if he still in charge and just has a strong (and justified) position against meta-humans.  He could be the MCU Amanda Waller. 
• Monica has more of a role in the last episode, after Agatha leaves, it is Monica who talks Wanda down and helps her come to grips with her grief and the impact of her actions in Westview.
• Yeah, that means to have to juggle the timeline of the last few episodes a bit to fit in the Double Vision fight, but that needed to happen anyway.  Just how long was Hex Vision flying from the circus truck that White Vision beat him to the house by a healthy margin?

 

3e was the best engineered edition of the game

    Someone said 4e was the best designed version (see my comments about not engaging in editions wars, we are past that fight mattering).  I think I can at least consider that point, even if it was not my taste.   However, 3e was the best engineered.  Perhaps it was over-engineered, but it had a lot riding on that design.  It had to take ALL the stuff from 25 years of the game, across several flavors of basic and advanced, make it into something coherent, without alienating fans.  And it mostly did that, in a robust way.  It is a shame we never saw a mainline revision of that rule set.  I think many of the OGL clones have come close, but imagine that attempt streamlining with WoTC's resources behind it.

 

The God War

 Another Addendum to my Default World posts.

D&D worlds are filled with lots of weird things, tons of sentient species, crazy old magic and dungeons. So where does all this stuff come from?  I ascribe to the philosophy that D&D is post apocalyptic, in that the classic game play elements and my own preferences for sword and sorcery style trappings work in a world where there was something "greater" that came before.

In my default D&D world, some time in the ancient past there was The God War.  Few specifics are known about this time, sometimes referred to as When Hell Rained (Reigned) Down Over The Land.  None are alive who remember anyone who remembers it first hand, even among the ancient Elves and Dragons.  The Gods, Demons, Divinations, and other Immortal sources of information are mum on the topic.  

What is surmised is that during this age the Gods and their Proxies laid direct claim to the lands.  They used their considerable powers to create wondrous structures and beings.  They also made terrible war, pitting greater and greater magics and creatures against each one another and each other as part of their mad games.  It is from this time that Artifacts, great Dungeons, and many of the creatures (sentient and not) came to be.  The bloodlines of many of these being also lay dormant in the modern populace, with atavisms being born periodically.

How this era came to end is a matter of conjecture, philosophy, and dogma.  The Church would say their Gods prevailed or put an end to the petty squabbles of lesser deities, to set the world right.  Others say the gods came to an agreement.  Some tell tales that mortals prevailed and cast them out.   The cynical presume the Gods became bored, or otherwise lost interest in the world or some resource therein.

Whatever the case, when your player's ask "Where did these come from", you can easily say "The God War".

Monks?

As an addendum to my series of posts on my Default D&D world and where various game elements fit, I want to wrap my head around the Monk class.  It is more than just a pugilist class, many of its abilities reference or are dependent on eastern style philosophy.

Despite the fact that D&D generally exists in a medieval European context, the Monk is not friar tuck, but and explicitly Asian themed class.

For a while this was fine as they had not quite elevated to a "core class" in 20th century D&D.  However, the Monk class is now firmly in the canon of D&D, so the class needs to fit holistically in the world.  They can't all be strangers from a far land, can they?

As I see it, that leaves us 2 main options.

1. This bit of Eastern Mysticism "has always" been part of our otherwise European setting, thereby leaving us to come up with some handwavey explanation for why that may be.
2. Re-contextualize the Monk class into something that fits the European milieu. 

I think both approaches could be valid.

Lets explore the first. Some event in the past of our setting gave this bit of eastern flavor.  

 It could be due to divine intervention, a deity looking to preserve a bit of culture, or prescribing this otherwise different way of fighting and thinking about natural law.  This does fit the class, since it does have trappings of philosophy and (nominally) lawful outlook.

It could be due to some diaspora from an eastern themed land.  This creates a few issues.  One, you have committed to having an eastern themed land.  Two, why just the Monk class, and not Samurai, Ninjas, etc.  the second is easy to answer.  Add those in too, maybe not as special classes, but just a flavor option.  The first is common enough in most game worlds, but does open us up to having a real world analog for every culture, and that may be more than we want.

So how about making the Monk class feel more European?  I don't think it takes too much to imagine a Friar Tuck like Monk in his robes being able to handle his own in a fight.  As he gains levels and study infusing his blows with divine might, making use of weapons derived from simple tools.  Whereas the Cleric dons armor and goes out to fight in the name of their god, a Monk protects the flock.  I see three issues,  1. the Church is already pretty full with Clerics, Paladins, maybe Druids as well.  2. While the class pays some lip service to philosophy and the divine, the class abilities just don't align with the way the Divine is handled in other classes.  3. Even if you go to the trouble to reskin all the class abilities, Players are going to either want or presume that eastern flavor anyway.

Whichever route we take it has to accomplish a few things.  Since they are no longer limited to humans, the setup we choose needs to make the role of the class fit the various races/cultures we have established.  It still needs to allow for players to play they class/flavor they want, more or less how they want.  It can't enforce too specific of a niche. A backwoods village needs a way to be a monk without explicitly learning from a monastery or guru.

Taking all of these thoughts, I think I would mix a little bit of the above and do the following:

• There are Orders of Monks who trace their teaching back ages, sometimes along specific teachings and lineages of philosophy. 
  
• Some orders may be absorbed into or an outgrowth of The Church
• They may also be individuals who have taken a personalized path to self improvement
• Some monks also travel the land offering their teachings.
• It is the result of these wandering monks that has led to the spread of the class throughout the realms.
• Monks will often reflect a certain amount of acculturation over time. Those within the church looking more like Friars, or incorporating the dress and affectations of the dominant culture (Dwarven, Hill Folk, etc.)
  
• Monks are often folks who have chosen to find their own path
• They are all marked by a certain attitude of looking inward for answers, and this often separates them from others.

So in my world The Church has a role for Monks (who will likely look like Friars), but there are also independent "monasteries" and wandering teachers and those who have taken an individual contemplative path in life.  These separations are also a good way to explain why they have such oddball weapons compared to the rest of the classes.

Not 100% satisfying, but it does meet my "default world" requirements of having a place for the class without a massive re-write of things, and allowing for the many interpretations of the class over the editions.

As an aside, if Psionics were ever core, I would like to see a mingling of Ki and Psionics.  Perhaps with the Monk being the Paladin to the Psionics' cleric.  As it stands, both classes just stick out.  But Psionics is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

Rogues and Thieves

Rounding out my thoughts on my default D&D world, I want to lay out my thoughts on members of the Rogue/Thief classes (Thieves, Bards, Assassins, etc.)

Lots of folks steal, heck most character's end up being grave robbers, or home invaders (just ask the goblins).  The abilities of the Thieving classes, go beyond mere skullduggery.  The ability to hide among shadows, climb sheer walls, or move in silence requires special training.  While self taught individuals exist, they are clearly someone who has gone to lengths to pick up these shady skills. So, where does a PC learn these things?    

Thieves guilds exist, but only in the largest most fantastic cities do they operate in the "Thieves College" model more prevalent in fantasy stories.  These sorts of guilds come about as a result of the unique conditions found in D&D (true deities, magic, weird beings. etc.).  The more common thieves guilds work more like organized crime families or street gangs, usually depending on the size and interconnectedness of the communities.  In more wild lands, these will take the form of bandit groups or other outlaws.

It is important to note that not every member of these groups are members of the thieving classes, similar to our discussion the Cleric class, and membership to The Church.  These bands of skallywags (perhaps more than any other group) will have members of every class.  Clerics of the god of thieves, or other marginalized faith, warriors  etc.  In these groups, members of the Thieving classes are just one more kind of specialist.  Some will have a knack for stealth, others deception, some are "boxmen" or "second story men".

Bards: My general thought of Bards leans more towards the Jack of All Trades traveler and story teller who picks up random talents in their travels and due to their less than savory lifestyle.  However, the notion of the Bardic College (as opposed to Bard College) is a popular one.  Like many organizations, they will most likely be found in the larger cities, as stand alone institutions or part of a larger institution of higher learning.  The middle ground is Bardic "schools" which are not an institution, but a collection of traditions shared among like minded travelers and performers.

Assassins:  The abilities of the Assassin "class" are typically not available until later levels, and so do not need a default place in the world.  Surely they can be found folded into their own guilds, as part of larger "Thieves" guilds, religious orders, or individuals for hire.  Even when trained from birth, they will likely pass through levels of more mundane class first. 

Warriors

Fighters, what is there to say about their place in a default D&D world, they hit things with weapons.  Warriors and weapons are more common in a fantasy world than in medieval history due to the constant threat of goblins, beasts, and other threats.   Any peasant can quickly find themselves skills in arms and armor without formal martial training.

In our default world, Fighters can be an individual commoner who has had to take up arms against threats, part of an informal town guard, or a soldier with formal training.  The trick is the other warrior classes (Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins, and various sub classes.

Barbarians: The barbarian class is a misnomer, particularly in modern D&D.  The name of the class denotes more a a cultural trapping, but the mechanics of the class reflect a reckless "raging" fighting style.  Members of this class can hale from a distance, rugged land, but they can also be a local with anger issues.

Rangers:  I have discussed some of my perceived issues with the Rangers before.The abilities of the class do denote some additional level of special training or exposure pertaining to the wilderness and the threats therein. There are troupes of Rangers in the more traditional sense, groups of individuals who specifically work to keep the threats of the wildlands from infringing on the bounds of civilization. 

Paladins: Much of what can be said about the Paladin was covered in my discussion of Clerics. They may be thought of as Clerics who know weapons a little better, they may be individual crusaders, or members of some formal organization.  In any even The Church will likely claim them.

Fighters: while lacking many of the class abilities of the above, can also easily be found among their ranks and worthy of the title (even if not members of the class). 

Magic and Warriors: Many classes, particularly in modern D&D have access to spells and magic abilities.  I don't have a specific philosophy when it comes to these matters.  They can be the result of learned study, passed down traditions, self discovery, or some other diegetic source.  It works best for the nature of the modern D&D game to allow players to advance without being anchored to a specific facet of the world.

Wizards and Magic

I was not happy with the original version of this post and have given it a re-write.

We have covered the place of the stock D&D races as well as some of the exotic ones in my default D&D world.  We also covered the place of Clerics and Druids, and what they say about the world as well. This time it is Wizards.  But first I think we need to talk about the nature of magic.

I don't get too in the weeds about what magic is or how it comes to be.  For me it is enough to say it is a fundamental force of the universe the characters inhabit.  As such it is accessible and manipulatable by the beings that occupy that universe.

Magic: Wizards are not the only ones who can use magic and "spell slots" are not the only way to make spells and magic happen.  While Clerics can use magic by virtue of their connection with their deity, Wizards have figured out how to use and shape magic directly.  Spells (as represented by spell slots) are those applications that can be accessed quickly and "easily".  An analogy may be found in fire; it is easier to harness fire with dry leaves than wet wood.  Magic can be accessed via more complicated rituals, some innate quality of a being, or some arrangement with a more powerful being, or even in accidental/uncontrolled ways.

Wizards: In my default world Wizards study esoteric formulae and take an analytical approach to magic.  They fill the role academics and keepers of knowledge in our sort-of medieval world (as opposed to the monks of the religious orders in the real world).

Instead of Abbeys filled with monks scribing knowledge as part of a religious pursuit on knowledge, they do so in the service of a Wizard or group of wizards.  Some may go on to become apprentice wizards, others simply sages, but most will likely stay scribes. While there are strong parallels to academia and research institution, only the largest cities have what one could consider Wizarding societies and schools.  (Though wizard school trope is too powerful to ignore these days).  

Wizards are the renaissance men of their world.  Many will take a position under a wealthy patron in order to further their studies. Instead of plumbing the mysteries of steam power or electricity, they toy with Elementals and charms.  This contributes to the extended medieval period seen in D&D worlds.  They are also the Mad Scientists.  Those who dabble in areas that are too dangerous for cities or polite society.  They will have their towers in far away places and a select few apprentices at their side.

Most characters will likely have learned from a local hedge-wizard.  Someone who could not find patronage, did not care for academia, or simply learned from the previous local wizard.  They are likely mid level at best, and their spells tend towards the basic and practical.

Spellbooks and Such: While the day to day game mechanics don't support the needs for shelves of books, cauldrons,  rituals, and copper tubing; these are the trappings of Wizards trying to unlock new shortcuts to shaping magic, in the form of spells and magic items. All of this study is documented in books.  Magical tomes don't just hold the spell itself, but explain theory, technique, history etc. about the spell.  The Wizard's spellbook is just the cliff notes reminder.  Sort of like how grandma's recipe card often doesn't list all the crucial details and techniques to prepare the food. That is why a Wizard will still have a library of tomes, its like a law reference library.

Other Spellcasters:  Classic D&D often had to sidestep the trope of the literate spellbook-using caster, with Shamen and Witches and the like, in order to allow monstrous magic users.  21st century D&D fully incorporates these "non-academic" spellcasters in the form or Sorcerers, Warlocks, changes to the Bard class and others. Classic spellbook using bards can easily be folded into the above milieu, having picked up a few spells from a hedgewizard or other source. 

Sorcerer's are likely seen as aberrations in all but the most enlightened Wizard communities.  A large enough wizard college may have a program for Sorcerers, sort of an Arcane Liberal Arts degree.

Warlocks are likely looked down on, people who neither earned, nor were born with their power, but instead "bought" it.

Druids (in 2e)

I touched previously on how the Cleric class (and by extension the Druid) is the one who's presentation does the most to set parameters on the fantasy world.  I think a special mention must be made for the Druid class for AD&D 2nd Edition.

• The Text of the Druid Class explicitly states they have a world wide structure.  
• Some "thing" even prevents them from leveling up past 12th level unless they interact with this world wide organization.  Typically needing to defeat another Druid of the given level.  
• There is a Grand Druid of 15th level who oversees the world.  This Grand Druid has a "staff" of Druids who serve as messengers and they gain additional spells slots. 
•  Beyond 15th level, they join the ranks of super druids whose bodies do not age, can alter their appearance at will, hibernate for ages, and travel to/survive the elemental planes.  

Combined with their standard ability to take on animal form and secret language, this is a world altering cabal.  Any animal could be a Druid in disguise or their agent.  Heirophants can impersonate high ranking folks.  They can see their agenda across human lifetimes and coordinate across the world and other planes.

Now, I love this bit of lore, and always keep it in mind for my games.  However, flavorful as it is, it does not fit into my default D&D world.  First, the Druid is not a part of all editions, and this lore specifically does not really appear anywhere else.  Finally, it is very specific and locks in certain other conventions that I would rather leave vague until needed.

On the other other hand, some interesting things to consider.

• No mention of Gods.  Those Druids who say they worship a nature deity are either mistaken, or going along with the cover story in order to avoid persecution by "the church".
• Grand Druids have extra spell slots.  So whatever grants their power, formally recognizes the stucture of the Druid order and its politics.
• Grand Druids have their own staff of lower level druids who are outside the hierarchy and level restrictions.  So whatever mechanism prohibits leveling up for Druids also recognizes the hierarchy and political station of the Grand Druid's staff.
• The Druidic language is secret, but known by all Druids.  It is not known by sylvan, elemental, or other allied beings.  It is something developed and used exclusively for the sake of the hierarchy.

So in short, the 2e Druid class has mechanics that define, inform, imply the most about the workings of the game world than any other class in D&D.

The Cleric class in the world

 Continuing the theme of the default D&D world I carry in my head, I want to put down my thoughts on Clerics.  Clerics (Druids and the like) are the class who's presence most defines the game world.  This is covered in greater detail over on Delta's blog.  To sum up my thoughts however; The Cleric class makes The Gods real, and implies a certain cosmology and theology.

As a digression, in my own simplified homebrew game I allow wizards/magic access to cleric/druid spells and have them use a player defined "fetish" as the thing that make their spells happen.  I refer to this class as Sorcerer, and stay mum on any specifics regarding the hows/whys of magic.  Much the same where there is little to define exactly how a Fighter goes about using their weapon.

That said, we talk about and play D&D and the point of this exercise is to try and define a world that fits all/most of D&D.  So with that in mind, below are my notions of how the class fits into that world.

• One does not need to be a member of an organized church/theology to be a member of the Cleric.  Many individuals feel the calling or have a revelation absent any training or organization.
  
• The character can choose the path of the cleric, or the higher power may select the character.  Depending on the character's view point, it can be difficult to know for sure which is the case, and possibly a sore point for the individual.
  
• Gods pay attention to mortals the way we pay attention to squirrels in the yard.  We know they play a roll in the ecosystem and need to be around, most of the time you pay them no mind, you find them amusing, you may have a few "special" ones you tend to recognize and provide for, and if they start causing problems, you will eventually intervene.
• The gods are not omniscient and we would typically define it.  While capable of observing near anything they wish, they don't pay attention to everything at all time. 
  
• In the Pseudo Medieval word, "The Church" is organized and operates much as one would expect the Christian church. Individual Deities fill a roll similar to patron saints. Instead of St. Patrick's Cathedral, you have the Temple of Pelor.
• The Church is in a position to provide stability, guidance, healing & medicine,  and other support to the community and are often aligned with the local secular political structure.
  
• Regions may elevate certain powers over others which can lead to different sects, political schisms, and relations to the otherworldly.  Such distinctions are frequently below the notice or care of the gods themselves. 
• When it comes to relations with Paladins, Druids and others who claim to show the will of higher powers, the Church will often try to fold them into the organization.  It is often a matter of political or personal choice on how those folks take it.
  
• Not all members of the religious hierarchy are members of the Cleric class.
• Leaders in the church tend to be members of the class.  It is the rare individual (no matter how devout or savvy) that can retain their position in the face of one who wields Clerical power.
• The members of religious hierarchies are still mortals and can get caught up in petty earthly concerns, and so may easily come into conflict with others, even those of the same faith.  Particularly in the case of those adventuring clerics always tromping in mud and expecting healing and resurrection.
  

... And the Rest

 This series of posts started as an exercise in expressing the Baseline D&D world I carry around in my head.  Since I tend to skew old school, it centers on the "Big 4" character races.  Since I don't stick to any one edition of the game, I also need to think about all the other races prevalent in the game.

Gnomes:  Aka 'Wood Dwarves", I treat them explicitly as members of the Dwarf family, skewing towards "David the Gnome" (in personality, not height).  I don't go full fey, but they have an implied connection to the magic of the woods, like a typical Dwarf's connection to stone. 

Half-Elves:  If it is an old school rule system, you will likely be playing an Elf with "bulkier" features.  "Half" Elves can actually be a few generations removed from their Elven or Human parent, and there will often be small enclaves within a larger community of extended Half Elf families.

Half-Orcs (Orcs): Pretty close to bog standard 3e Half Orcs. My Orcs are corrupted humanoids and not a race as such. So by extension Half Orcs are also not a race in the same sense and would just be seen a "More Orcs"

Goblinoids: Like Orcs, they are not a race, but more "gremlin" like beings that spring full grown into being in the dark, wet, scary places. Over time they grow bigger and meaner, into Hobgoblins, and Bugbears (Deep Goblins).

Ogres: Cribbing from The Hobbit, they turn to stone in sunlight.

Tieflings: Fall under the category of "Humans with a weird family tree", they can be spontaneously born to otherwise normal parents.

Dragonborn: Created by Dragons as a vassal race in ages past, they tend to stay among other dragons.

Misc: Lots of other races would also get tossed in the "Humans with weird family history" pile, or stranger from a strange place, or descended from being created by the gods during the last god war.

Closing thoughts: I don't like my worlds choked full of large amounts of sentient species.  Mostly out of a desire to keep things simple at the start for easy play.  For that same ease of play, I have made your typical low level foes (Goblins/Orcs) unnatural creatures.  Depending on the setting, rules, and experiences of the players, all of these guidelines are subject to change. 

Much like making a stew, you take the ingredients you  have, mix together what you want, to end up with something folks will enjoy.

Humans

It seems in the early days of the game, it was presumed your human would be of a medieval European style background.  Little detail was put into describing humans, unless it revolved around your social standing.  As various settings got published, any number of human cultures. In most cases, they seem to match some real world culture with the serial numbers filed off.

For my generic D&D world, I do like to have a base human (as represented by the system’s given core rules) and then some regional benefits. In the interest of keeping options open, I shy away from specific cultural associations and instead lean towards generic descriptors, examples below:

• Humans are ubiquitous throughout the lands.
• Humans are often viewed with mistrust by other races, however they tend to be distrusted "equally" among the lands, including by other humans.
  
• Human kind have spread for ages, meaning folk of all appearances can be found in enclaves in any given region.
• Most humans are seen as adults when they move out from under their parents roof, often by their mid teens.
• Humans speak a regional tongue common to most folk of the area, and some may speak a pigeon trade language or the languages of other nearby folk.
• The further one gets from population centers, settlements become increasing agrarian and simple. Human cities operate at an almost an early renascence level of technology, wherein sorcery is the logic and science of the land. Outlying regions can be near antediluvian is daily life.
• Depending on upbringing, Humans can have additional traits (rule information modified to fit your system)
  
• Common: Nothing particular, you have the typical game stats and languages for humans.
• Cosmopolitan: You hail from an area where cultural exchange is the norm, allowing you a chance to communicate with creatures despite language differences and gain a bonus to social interactions when you do share a language.
• Hill Folk: You gain a bonus to climbing and leaping.
• Northmen: You can travel across and survive the snow and ice with no penalty
• Dune Dweller:You gain a bonus to survive hot and dry climates, ignoring heat that would hobble others.
  
• Forrest Runner: You can always find food and water for 1d4 creatures in woodlands.
• Horse Lord: You have a bonus to ride and handle horses and similar mounts.
• Sea Dog: Bonus to swimming, seamanship, and ocean survival.
  
• Outlander: You have a skill or talent that is un-heard in the region, but you do not initially speak the common tongue.
• Noble: Double your starting money and gain a bonus to social interactions among the upper crust.

Halflings

In many ways, figuring out what a base D&D Halfling means to me was more difficult than for Elves.  Whereas Elves have a multitude of interpretations and aspects, Halflings have almost none.  You have Hobbits, Kender, and Athasian Cannibals/or other "Extreme" interpretations. 3e did away with the three distinct subgroups (tallfellow, stout, hairfoots) which I think is a shame as it gave something special to them as a race choice.  It was an understandable choice since it was tied to a percentile roll.

Baseline Halflings:

• The origins of Halflings, Hobbits in their own language, has been lost along with many aspects of their history, culture, and language.
• Halflings can be found throughout the realms, typically in proximity to other groups.  Much like humans their appearance and traits vary depending on the region.
• Their lifespans and aging a similar to humans, but they tend to be more spry in their older years.
  
• There are a small number of Hobbit lands, usually in out of the way area.  In these places more traditional (if not original) Hobbit lifestyles are prevalent.  Their relative isolation has given rise to distinct family traits among the inhabitants. 
• In areas where other cultures have overtaken the lands, Halflings generally adapt to the local customs.
• While they don't tend to form their own neighborhoods or enclaves in these cases, they do group along extended family lines.
  
• The Hobbit mind tends to be averse to complexity.  They enjoy simple work, and comforts, working to get things "just so"
  
• The Hobbit language has generally been reduced to a few words and colloquialism mixed into the common tongue.  Even within Hobbit lands, it is reduced to academic or ceremonial use.  Many Halflings don't even know it anymore, instead speaking the languages of other nearby cultures.
  
• Re-discovery of their shared culture is often a driver for adventuring Hobbits.

So there you have it.  Turning the fact that there is so little exploration of Halflings, and that no one ever takes Halfling as a language into their Culture.

Dwarfs

 Dwarfs (or Dwarves) are an easier fit than Elves.  They have been portrayed fairly consistently across editions and popular culture at large.  Sleepy, Bashful, Doc could fit right in along Gimli or Flint Fireforge.  Really the only trick is their sudden ability to use magic in modern D&D.

My baseline for D&D Dwarves

• Dwarves is a mis-translation of the their word for themselves which means roughly "Born of the Earth" and in their own tounge sounds closer to "Dwarfs".  It has since come to be used to describe any short person in the human tongues.  Dwarves do not care for this fact, and this may contribute to their reputation for grumpiness.
• While they can live for centuries, they age in a manner proportional to humans, lending most Dwarves an aged appearance for most of their lives.
• Dwarves are burly and wide compared to humans, their arms are broader and longer as well but their hands are deft.
  
• Dwarfs believe they were crafted by higher powers and trace the most ancient parts of their culture to mountain strongholds.
  
• Hair is not seen as unattractive on Dwarf women, many have facial and body hair of varying prominence.  Some Dwarf women have adopted the trends of their neighbors, leading to some confusion about the existence of Dwarf women and/or their beards.
• Dwarfs value toil, self sufficiency, and clan/family commitments.  This gives them a unique outlook on trade with outsiders.  This has led to misunderstandings which are the origins of their reputation for greed and in some cases wickedness. 
• Dwarfs have always used magic, but their traditions are steeped more in animism and they tended to distrust the more "sterile" magic practiced by humans.
  
• Most Dwarves tend to keep to themselves, be it in their mountain cities, local mining  settlements, or within a city trade district.
• Dwarf settlements, particular those in the mountains are are dizzying maze of mining tunnels, work spaces, and dwellings.  Grand halls and other specified areas are typically the vision or a particularly motivated leader or individual.  When you see a specific fortress, hall, or building made for outsiders, it is usually less a gesture of hospitality and more one of practicality, to keep outsiders from getting int he way.
• Dwarfs have learned to leverage the particular ecosystem of the world below to cultivate all manner of specialized flora and fauna, providing adequate agriculture.
  

This basically covers your traditional D&D/Tolkien dwarf, leaving room for the various sub-races and your more ancient Norse/Howardian malevolent being that bursts from the ground. 

Elves

I carry around a Baseline D&D world in my head.  It is built of all the bibs and bobs of fantasy and D&D lore smooshed together.  The goal I think it to try and make all fit and make sense in a satisfying way.  While much of it is a matter of taste, I have settled on some assumptions that work for me.

Today the topic is Elves.  The below sets a baseline of what my D&D Elves are like.

• Elves, Eladrin in their own tongue, originally hale from another realm ("Across the Sea", a different plane, continent, planet, time) the exact nature of which is a matter of conjecture.
• The Oldest/Original Elves are Ageless and Immortal.
• Very few of them are present any more, many having returned from whence they came or having been slain in age old conflicts.
• Elves born of the earth realm retain youthful looks through most of their lives, which can span centuries
• They have large bright eyes in proportion to their heads.  Their lithe frames also give them the appearance of extra height.
  
• Elvish lifespans do seem to be shortening, some attribute it to a property of living among mortals, others to the taint of human blood (we will get to Half-Elves later)
• Their homelands are remote and claim borders that extend far from their gates, typically in ancient forests they have protected and cultivated for untold ages.  
• They have build strong relations with the sylvan creatures in order to create a safe and secure zone around their homes.  This relationship often causes other folk to confuse aspects of Nymphs, Dryads, Satyrs and other woodsy races with those of the Elves.
  
• These homelands tend to be wondrous "cities", grown in and among the natural beauty.  Ancient Elven magics have delicately coaxed stone and metal from the ground to form towers, bridges, and homes among the trees or other natural features.  (Think Lothlorien from the Lord of the Rings movies).
• This same ancient magic keeps these seemingly fragile dwellings warm, dry, and secure.
• In the same way, they use such magic to procure abundant food and other resources from their lands.
• Near every Elf is of some "royal" blood as they organize themselves into houses for a grand game of court.
• These resources allow them to spend their centuries in idle amusement.  At times seeming aloof and others wanton.
• In short, the Elven mind is different.  What can at times seem like stoicism, debauchery, or malevolence,  or other "unkind" behaviors or emotions are simply the result of being such a long lived race with a different view of the World they currently inhabit.
  
• Elves travel outside of their homelands for a number of reasons,  amusement, novelty, seeking a sense of purpose (at least for the time being).  To humans, an Elven settlement or neighborhood may seem permanent, to the Elves it is viewed as but a summer vacation rental.
• Elves that hunt and farm and otherwise go about their lives in a way similar to other races, are "doing as the mortals do" and fitting in with the neighbors. 
  

All of the above is an attempt to find room for all the depictions of Elf kind throughout the ages and editions. If Elves are fairie adversaries as in Three Hearts and Three lions, separate from the lands of mankind, you have it.  If they are spread out among the lands, you have it.  Are they stoic and almost Vulcan like (as seemed to be the case in the early 80s), there is a reason for that perception.  The great thing with Elves is their long lives allows you to write off any depiction as a "passing fancy".

What is a Ranger,

 but a mismatched pile of special abilities.

The Ranger is a class that no one seems to be able to figure out.  The only other class that comes close to the constant stream of dissapointment is possibly the Monk.  It has had countless revisions both between and within editions.

I imagine that the problem lies with the original concept in general.

-I have no proof of this (maybe some digging over at Playing at the World would turn up some into), but presumably someone wanted to play Aragorn, so we have a class that emulates that character's abilities in Lord of the Rings.  But some of the abilities described in that work are the result of Aragorn's heritage and status, not his day job of running about the woods.  So in addition to the woodsie survival stuff, you also have an odd mix of divine and arcane spells and tricks (depending on edition)

-This brings us to the basic definition of a Ranger: one of a body of organized armed men who range over a region especially to enforce the law; a soldier specially trained in close-range fighting and in raiding tactics.  Honestly, that just sounds like any given D&D character? They leave the confines of civilization, raid dungeons, fight monsters in close quarters, and bring"law" to the wilds

The combination of odd abilities and a lack of clear thesis started the class of on a bad foot.  Then over time, it jut gets more confused. Drizzt shows up as a Ranger who can fight with 2 weapons (because he is a Drow), but that gets folded into the class.  Around 2e they seem to start the transition from folks who tame nature, to ones who protect it.  It is also my personal belief that since D&D lacked a proper swashbuckler type character, many folks looked to the Ranger class to create that sort of archetype, further muddying the expectations of the class.

3e comes along, and suddenly the doors open for character builds, but 2 weapon fighting is still presented as a core concept for the class?  It also gets pushed more into the "Nature Magic" camp than before, and you get animal companions (taking a bit from Beastermaster, which always seemed more of a Barbarian achretype). 3.5 adds the option of Archery, and also some acutal wilderness special abilities, but then dials back the HD, making it seem less of a warrior.  And you still have the long standing issue of a class who's major ability (favored enemy) only comes into play when the DMs plans for it.

4e, for whatever your opinion of it, did try to mitigate some of the issues by giving the class things like Hunter's Quarry and other abilities that synergized with "Special Forces" archetype to give it a niche.

So now we have a class that folks want to be about animal pals, and nature magic, and wilderness survival, and favored enemies, and Two Weapon Fighting, and Archer, and and and....

It cant be all of those things, even if you try to split all the flavors out into different "paths"

We circle back to the question, does it even need to be a class? Can it even be a single class, or should we give some of its stuff to the Fighter, Barbarian, and Druid and leave the title "Ranger" the same way we might use "Thief", "Witch", or "Knight"?