# Has D&D become too...D&Dish?



## JohnSnow (Jun 21, 2006)

Okay...I was reading Monte Cook's intro to the _A Player's Guide to Ptolus_ when something hit me. Monte designed 3e and his favorite style of fantasy has SERIOUSLY influenced the game. Basically, 3e (original and revised) reflect Monte Cook's preferred style of fantasy.

One quote from the guide is telling to me...



> Just the opposite, really. As a setting, Ptolus has been under the influence of the Core Rules for a long, long time. The things that make d20 fantasy unique—the prevalence of magic (including the specific spells we all know), the ever-increasing power of individuals, and the creatures of the MM—have shaped the reality of Ptolus. And because I used this setting as a playtest backdrop as I worked on the design of the Third Edition Core Rules, Ptolus influenced the d20 System rules as well. This is a setting steeped in game history and significance.




Monte hasn't been shy about telling us that Ptolus (his campaign setting) IS 3e. But the thing is, I think Monte's written his preferred style of gaming into the D&D 3e system. Now, he didn't do this alone, obviously, since game design is a group effort. Which means he had the complicity of his fellow designers at Wizards. So I guess we can presume this is the preferred style of gaming over there? They ALL play this style of game when they play?

Anyway, as a result, getting a different style now means changing the rules. The style has become so fundamental to the system that there's no room for tweaking for style anymore. The only D&D product that's really attempted to address it at all is _Unearthed Arcana_, with all of its variant rules. But even that leaves many of the basic assumptions untouched. Changing those is left to variant rulebooks, like Malhavoc's own _Iron Heroes_. And it's not a D&D product, or even officially d20. (As an aside, I've always found it interesting that Monte's name is on a product so clearly inimical to his preferred style of fantasy.)

Is this okay? Do we want this? Is everyone on board with the style preferred by the WotC 3e designers? Or would we rather see more products supporting different styles of gaming. 

The floor is open.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 21, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Anyway, as a result, getting a different style now means changing the rules. The style has become so fundamental to the system that there's no room for tweaking for style anymore. The only D&D product that's really attempted to address it at all is _Unearthed Arcana_, with all of its variant rules. But even that leaves many of the basic assumptions untouched. Changing those is left to variant rulebooks, like Malhavoc's own _Iron Heroes_. And it's not a D&D product, or even officially d20. (As an aside, I've always found it interesting that Monte's name is on a product so clearly inimical to his preferred style of fantasy.)
> 
> Is this okay? Do we want this? Is everyone on board with the style preferred by the WotC 3e designers? Or would we rather see more products supporting different styles of gaming.
> 
> The floor is open.




I'm not getting what you mean by style here. Is Heroes of Horror not about putting a horror style spin on a D&D game? Do you mean low magic? More anime action like exalted or Feng Shui? More politics and social interaction like Vampire? I don't see how these different game styles can't be supported in a game using the D&D rules. 

Even low magic cthulhu horror could be done by restricting classes to expert (similar to d20 Cthulhu) and using the same rules (whereas Cthulhu changed rules like AoOs).


----------



## Scribble (Jun 21, 2006)

I'm not sure I agree...


D&D as it stands is for the most part, the same as it always was, even before Monte...

The rules are a bit different, but the same concepts remain... Elves and Hob- err Halflings...  Swords and sorcery... Classes and experience points... magic items...

Even in say, second edition, with it's many different settings, they all pretty much used the same base ideas...


Unless maybe I'm missing what you mean?


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jun 21, 2006)

I prefer characters less dependent on magic items so unless I feel like running a standard magic item game (which I consider high) I make the necessary modifications in games that I run.  My games also involve less dungeon crawling and more politics (but not much more politics, and by politics I mean the politics of a thousand guys with pointy weapons).
Not a big deal 'cause its not hard to change.
I don't think its too hard to tweak the style of the game.  Just get the right attitude from the DM and the players (and possibly a few rules alterations) and there you go.

I hate PRCs but its not hard to ignore them either.

Most styles are pretty much the same when they come down to it (I've player D&D 2nd and 3rd, Shadowrun 3rd and 4th, Seventh Sea and a couple GURPs games):
Kill things take their stuff (or in some cases kill thing and then get stuff for killing them from a third party).

Monte Cook wasn't the only guy involved in making 3e either.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 21, 2006)

By style I mean this...



> The things that make d20 fantasy unique—the prevalence of magic (including the specific spells we all know), the ever-increasing power of individuals, and the creatures of the MM—




I would also throw in the word "rapidly" before "every-increasing."

If by "low-magic," you mean no magic shops, characters defined by their personal abilities rather than their 30 piece magical accessory set, and worlds where the spell effects of low-level D&D spells aren't commonplace, then yeah, I guess maybe I do mean low-magic.

I guess if that's what people want out of D&D, it's not my game anymore. However, I am just asking. Am I that much in the minority?



			
				Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> I prefer characters less dependent on magic items so unless I feel like running a standard magic item game (which I consider high) I make the necessary modifications in games that I run...Not a big deal 'cause its not hard to change.
> I don't think its too hard to tweak the style of the game. Just get the right attitude from the DM and the players (and possibly a few rules alterations) and there you go.
> 
> I hate PRCs but its not hard to ignore them either.
> ...




For the record, I never said he was, just that his style influenced it. I also freely admit that style may be shared by the entire WotC staff (and said as much in my first post).

Yes, the game CAN be tweaked...but doing so involves changing D&D so that, many people would say, it stops being D&D.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 21, 2006)

As a player in Monte's Ptolus game and as a keen student of the development of D&D under Wizards of the Coast, I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning.

The quoted section from the Player's Guide seems to summarize game elements that are hard-wired into the system, and have been from the start. Advancing characters. Magic items. Lots of spells.

Is there some specific sort of "flavor" from Ptolus that you think has influenced the 3.x rules?

I'm interested to grok the point you're trying to make, but right now I'm having difficulty understanding what that is.

--Erik


----------



## Mark Plemmons (Jun 21, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So I guess we can presume this is the preferred style of gaming over there? They ALL play this style of game when they play?




Interesting theory, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "style," unless you mean the "feel" you get from reading the books.  Or do you mean does everyone at Wizards use all the rules/sourcebooks/etc every time they play?

As an aside, however, I don't think you can presume any of that.  Just within our handful of KenzerCo staff, everyone has a different style of DMing, and I'd think that also holds true within a larger staff such as that at Wizards.  Of course, when writing a product each person's work is subsumed into the whole.

Not to mention the fact that another person may think a product has a different style than you do.  Ever hear the story of the blind men and the elephant?


----------



## Voadam (Jun 21, 2006)

Leveling characters in world with lots of magic and monsters has been D&D since the beginning.

To adjust rate of advancement change how much xp is given out or how much is needed per level.

To make a more low magic, high fantasy campaign model, grant more feats, high ability scores and consider gestalt and making all skills class skills and or granting more skill points per level and consider free LA. At the same time reduce the gp value of loot and availability of magic and or major spellcasting classes.

Healing and some DR are the only major issues that then still must be compensated for.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 21, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> By style I mean this...
> 
> 
> Quote:
> The things that make d20 fantasy unique—the prevalence of magic (including the specific spells we all know), the ever-increasing power of individuals, and the creatures of the MM—





But... again I'm still a little confused... All that stuff, seems less influenced by Ptolus and Monte, then by just D&D in and of itself...  

But maybe thats what you mean when you say is it too D&D?  

Are you asking should the core change?  IE should D&D give up the fundamental stuff that it's always had in favor of something more customizable? 


If thats the case... Eh... I think it's kind of there... I mean there's the core d20 system,. that can be "templated" to just about any idea you want. D&D is kind of one of those templates, the flagship template, but none the less...


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 21, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> As a player in Monte's Ptolus game and as a keen student of the development of D&D under Wizards of the Coast, I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning.
> 
> The quoted section from the Player's Guide seems to summarize game elements that are hard-wired into the system, and have been from the start. Advancing characters. Magic items. Lots of spells.
> 
> ...




Okay. Let me see if I can restate it. Yes, D&D has ALWAYS had advancing characters, magic items, and lots of spells.

However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly. They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control." And the characters were supposed to be "exceptional" so that low-level magic wasn't all that commonplace. As a result, the default settings felt more medieval and less Harry Potter-ish.

I'm not sure if that "flavor" is Ptolus influencing D&D, but I find it a telling comment on Monte's gaming tastes. As he said, it's D&D turned up. I don't want a campaign world where bars have "no detections" signs posted. It might be fun for a diversion, but for the most part, it feels kinda "Monty Python-esque" in its absurdity.

It's a LONG way from the kind of fantasy that got me interested in fantasy roleplaying games. But then again, maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon.

For what it's worth, I truly appreciate you trying to understand my point.


----------



## Shadowslayer (Jun 21, 2006)

I sorta see what you're getting at...but older editions had an implied style too. Its always been up to the individual DM to tweak the game to his liking. The big difference is the old rulebooks used to come right out and say that. Now, not so much.

I mean, a designer has to design a game for maximum playability for the most people. If they went and made allowances for every different "style" of RPG, we'd have a gazillion options, but no core game. I doubt that'd be a recipe for mass success.

Plus, hardcore RPGers are a persnickety lot anyway. And the designers know that. You're not going to make everyone happy. So may as well try to make MOST of them happy.

And for the ones who like a different style, there's the OGL. Go nuts.

That's how I see it, anyway.


----------



## painandgreed (Jun 21, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> By style I mean this...




I agree those things are there, but I think they are easily fixed. A new XP chart (mine starts at 1000 XP for level 2 and goes up by a multiple of 1.6 every level afterwards) solves the ever rapidly increasing power, and if you want less or no spell casters or magic items in the game, don't put them in. Sure, some monsters become tougher or impossible to beat, but that just means that the DM actually has to do some work or the players actually have to worry about their next combat. The worst thing to happen to D&D has been CR and ECL which has led to lazy DMs and whiney players. In fact, if you did the second, you probably wouldn't have to do the first as players would have to concentrate on creatures below their level (if they are metagaming like that) and that will most likely slow down their advancement some.


----------



## adwyn (Jun 21, 2006)

I too am an old curmudgeon and gotta agree with you. But I have also noticed a profound difference in the adherence to the style dogma I encounter online versus the real world .


----------



## painandgreed (Jun 21, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly. They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control." And the characters were supposed to be "exceptional" so that low-level magic wasn't all that commonplace. As a result, the default settings felt more medieval and less Harry Potter-ish.




Yes, characters did advance more slowly in the olden days. With 3.x it is designed to have people advance to level 20 with a year of weekly play. Most games in the old days (that I was in) did not advance that much in two years of weekly play. However, advancement and levels of magic items varied widely from DM to DM. The thing that changed was that D&D presented a set level of expectation for people to follow in 3.x that did nor really exist before. From personal experience, I would say that the current expected standard does exceed what I ever experienced in any of my old 1E or 2E games.


----------



## beepeearr (Jun 21, 2006)

> If by "low-magic," you mean no magic shops, characters defined by their personal abilities rather than their 30 piece magical accessory set, and worlds where the spell effects of low-level D&D spells aren't commonplace, then yeah, I guess maybe I do mean low-magic.




It's funny, but I remember the previous editions much more differently then you.  I most  remember scouring every inch of a dungeon looking for every single gp and magic item that I could find.  What magic items we found defined our character since for the most part once your class was chosen you really didn't change much except for a new class ability here or there.  The majority of our cool "personal abilities" came from what ever magic item we happen to be weilding.  The DM could (and often would in my experience) map out how he wanted the players to play by handing out certain items as treasure.  

If anything 3E, with feats, set ability bonuses, and a much better skill system which allows a character to actually improve at something as his level increases, a much looser multiclass system, and the removal of class restrictions, allows for a game that is much more defined by the abilities of the character and not just his loot.      

Think what you want in your game.  Is it the bookkeeping you dislike, the power level of the game, or just the perceived mundane quality of magic.  

For my game when I run games in an area were magic is rare, I allow the characters to spend their time, gold, and exp in training.  First off they need someone with the abilities they wish to learn who can train them.  He'll be the one making any neccesary skill checks.  The PC provides the Gold, Time, and XP.  I basically handle it like magic item creation except the gold piece cost is quadrupled, the xp costs are doubled and your success is more dependent on your instructor then yourself (you can grant a synergy bonus through aid another though). And training time is measured in weeks not days like item creation.  

In the campaigns I've used it in, I haven't seen any problems.  The players wind up with less trained abilities than they would have had in magic items, but the abilities are more flexible and in most cases nonmagical n nature, which is why the cost in time, gold, and xp are all increased.   Plus the training and searching for an appropriate trainer can make for some interesting role-play.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 21, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay. Let me see if I can restate it. Yes, D&D has ALWAYS had advancing characters, magic items, and lots of spells.
> 
> However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly.




Yes. The average campaign didnt go into the teens. Meaning half the rules were superflous, and poorly tested.



> They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control."




If by "out of control" you mean awarded by the book treasure, or ran any published adventures, then yes. I think its been heavily proven that this theoretical land where players enjoy risking their characters neck for a few coppers and a potion of healing exists firmly in Bizzarro world. There was a great Dragon artical called "the Game that Wasnt" that explored the hipocracy of the DMG advice against giving out too much treasure and the actual treasure tables and published scenarios. Nowadays, it seems too many DM's preen on how stingy they can be, how much their players love to be screwed over etc. 





> And the characters were supposed to be "exceptional" so that low-level magic wasn't all that commonplace. As a result, the default settings felt more medieval and less Harry Potter-ish.




And as a result, the incorrectly assumed default setting was lame. Seriously, if cure light wounds is a 1st level spell, and 1st level isnt all that high level, it IMPACTS the world. I'm frankly sick and tired of people trying to run midieval campaigns when the players can cast spells. Pick one. If your guys can cast spells, its not low magic anymore, despite you wanting "magic to be mysterious" or some such nonsense. If raise dead is 5th level, it means its available to important individuals. No one important dies of regular disease, etc. For once, its nice that the setting reflects the rules. 1st and 2nd edition settings were poorly written in that regard... no big surprise given their authors.


----------



## Seeten (Jun 22, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> And as a result, the incorrectly assumed default setting was lame. Seriously, if cure light wounds is a 1st level spell, and 1st level isnt all that high level, it IMPACTS the world. I'm frankly sick and tired of people trying to run midieval campaigns when the players can cast spells. Pick one. If your guys can cast spells, its not low magic anymore, despite you wanting "magic to be mysterious" or some such nonsense. If raise dead is 5th level, it means its available to important individuals. No one important dies of regular disease, etc. For once, its nice that the setting reflects the rules. 1st and 2nd edition settings were poorly written in that regard... no big surprise given their authors.




Ouch.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly. They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control." And the characters were supposed to be "exceptional" so that low-level magic wasn't all that commonplace. As a result, the default settings felt more medieval and less Harry Potter-ish.




As far as I can remember from being on the periphery of the D&D publishing operation during the birth of third edition, the advancement rate was sped up because market research suggested most campaigns lasted only 6 months or so. The reasoning, as I remember it, was to put more of the game into that time, so that a lot of development wasn't "wasted" on levels that very few players ever achieved.

The third edition experience progression is linear, rather than curved (as it had been before). These days, it ought to take just about as long to go from first to second level as it does from 18th to 19th, and that certainly was not the case in earlier editions.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if that "flavor" is Ptolus influencing D&D, but I find it a telling comment on Monte's gaming tastes. As he said, it's D&D turned up. I don't want a campaign world where bars have "no detections" signs posted. It might be fun for a diversion, but for the most part, it feels kinda "Monty Python-esque" in its absurdity.




That's really not how Ptolus works in operation, although I wouldn't be surprised to see such a thing. Ptolus is basically Monte's attempt to model a fantasy city if the D&D rules actually governed the way things work in the world. There are invisible folks lurking in the shadows (sometimes), monsters walking the street, etc. It's actually really fun, but it is a little different from the pseudo-medieval fantasy that most of us were playing in the early 1980s.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> It's a LONG way from the kind of fantasy that got me interested in fantasy roleplaying games. But then again, maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon.




Maybe. 



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I truly appreciate you trying to understand my point.




I think your point is that first edition provided a ruleset to emulate quasi-historical medieval fantasy whereas third edition provides a set of campaign assumptions that are based on the rules. Quasi-historical fantasy seems increasingly less important these days, with Eberron being perhaps the best example.

In 1e, the rules were secondary to the feel, whereas in 3rd edition the feel is secondary to the rules.

Is that what you're trying to say?

--Erik


----------



## Gundark (Jun 22, 2006)

Has D&D become too D&Dish? 

One complaint i never thought I'd hear


----------



## Andor (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay. Let me see if I can restate it. Yes, D&D has ALWAYS had advancing characters, magic items, and lots of spells.
> 
> However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly. They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control." And the characters were supposed to be "exceptional" so that low-level magic wasn't all that commonplace. As a result, the default settings felt more medieval and less Harry Potter-ish.
> 
> ...




Old D&D always had 'fluff' that went on at great length about how rare magic was, how wondrous to the average peasant etc. etc. etc. It was never true in play though, every second orc had a plus +1 sword, or Bohemian ear-spoon. Most characters has a magic weapon by second level.

There are three big differences between the older editions and 3.x D&D in this reguard.

1) Wealth guidelines by level let you know when you are being to stingy/monty haul by the games baselines.

2) Walmart style magic item shops are expected by the players, and are the one default setting feature that I would chuck instantly. Old school the GM controlled what the players had access to. In 3e players expect to control their characters items. I'm fine with that if they want to pay the feats to make their own items, but don't expect Crazy Vaklavs hut o' magic in East Beefcake to automatically have a flying acidic kama of flensing.

3) A closer alignment in general between the fluff and the crunch. Settings like Eberron and Ptolus try to acknowledge the realities of a D&D style world.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Jun 22, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> 2) Walmart style magic item shops are expected by the players, and are the one default setting feature that I would chuck instantly. Old school the GM controlled what the players had access to. In 3e players expect to control their characters items. I'm fine with that if they want to pay the feats to make their own items, but don't expect Crazy Vaklavs hut o' magic in East Beefcake to automatically have a flying acidic kama of flensing.




I don't know where this assupmtion comes from.  I have, not once, in any D&D campaign I've run (before 3rd edition or since) had a magic item emporium.  And my players (some of whom, I know, play only in my campaigns) still ask about them.  Its wierd.

Later
silver


----------



## Digital M@ (Jun 22, 2006)

Of course MC and the other authors opinions imacted the feel of the game, that is what authors, creators and writers do.  I think all of your questions were thoughly answered when 3E came out.  Most of it was simple, such as faster lvl developement because according to research most campaigns didn't last longer than a year and faster advancement allowed players to experience more levels in the year.  

D&D has always been high magic, that is what it is about.  The idea of low magic gritty feel is a more recent development following a similar trend in popular fantasy writing.  Anyways, it is a flexable enough system  to modify to fit what you need.

IMO, the only thing really done poorly was the skill system.  They wanted skills to play a greater part in the game, but were unable to come up with a simple balaced system to integrate them.  Most classes don't get enough skill points to make use of them and therefor make skills somewhat worthless.  But, you can tweak that easily enough as well.  But this is for another thread altogether.


D&D was always high magic, was always about getting stuff and getting tough enough to kill kewl creatures that go bump in the night.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The style has become so fundamental to the system that there's no room for tweaking for style anymore.




D&D has no style to it, save in the core assumptions of the game that the pull quote mentions. And those have been assumptions in the game since the day of it's inception. Things like Iron Heroes, Midnight, Forgotten Realms, Eberon, or Ptolus show how flexible D&D is by adapting it to specific styles and world building assumptions.



> However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly. They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control."




It did, because the XP table basically doubled every level, until at the mid levels you were having to get the same XP you'd gained the entire previous part of the campaign just to go up a level. I played D&D for 20 years under that system with campaigns lasting years in length; never, never did we get past about 12th. Ever. And that's with playing D&D once a week religiously. Look at the various threads and the WOTC marketing survey: the majority of groups (1) don't stay together that long and (2) don't meet that often. With the new system, high level play is actually possible now without simply starting at high level or playing the same characters for seven and eight years at a stretch.

The whole 'stingy with magic items' thing is not part of the style of D&D per se. It was an abberation created by early GM's.

If anyone was playing D&D as written as a midieval simulation with no associated world building limitations, well, they weren't paying attention or they simply chose to ignore the giant elephant in the corner called 'easy to learn and cast magic with fundamentally world-changing effects'.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 22, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> 1) Wealth guidelines by level let you know when you are being to stingy/monty haul by the games baselines.




But thewy are guidelines only.  All you have to do is tell your players you aren't looking at them or using them.



> 2) Walmart style magic item shops are expected by the players, and are the one default setting feature that I would chuck instantly. Old school the GM controlled what the players had access to. In 3e players expect to control their characters items. I'm fine with that if they want to pay the feats to make their own items, but don't expect Crazy Vaklavs hut o' magic in East Beefcake to automatically have a flying acidic kama of flensing.




This seems to be a common on line complaint that few people actually see in game.  I have yet to read a setting that had a Walmart magical item shop in it.


----------



## Andor (Jun 22, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But thewy are guidelines only.  All you have to do is tell your players you aren't looking at them or using them.




Obviously. That's why I was careful to include the word baseline. Honestly it's more for the GM's benefit that the players.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> This seems to be a common on line complaint that few people actually see in game.  I have yet to read a setting that had a Walmart magical item shop in it.




I've yet to play in a game that _didn't_ have such a shop in it. In every game we get into town and the players just look at their cash, page through the DMG and hand the GM a list of what they want, and almost always get rubber stamped. Forget a limited selection. Also forget haggleing or any possibility that the shop keeper or townspeople might possibly cut you some slack just because you saved them, their livestock, and their immortal souls from horror and torment.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly. They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control." And the characters were supposed to be "exceptional" so that low-level magic wasn't all that commonplace. As a result, the default settings felt more medieval and less Harry Potter-ish.





Ah, I _think_ I see what you mean:


Gygaxian D&D = Conservative

Cooksian D&D = Liberal


----------



## Tuzenbach (Jun 22, 2006)

> Most games in the old days (that I was in) did not advance that much in two years of weekly play.




Ah yes! The ole "we can get to 7th level in a month but then we're screwed" method of play. Unless you were a Thief, have fun playing the "waiting game" for all levels beyond 7!


----------



## Psion (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> By style I mean this...
> 
> 
> > The things that make d20 fantasy unique—the prevalence of magic (including the specific spells we all know), the ever-increasing power of individuals, and the creatures of the MM—




Hmmm... well, if you -- or Monte, really -- asserts that this consitutes a single inevitable style, I think I have to disagree. Much in the same way that I disagree with many people's assertions about what a D&D world will inevitably look like based on a bunch of assumptions that are less than univerally shared.

And, you know what. The current designers seem to agree with this. The feel of FR is different than the feel of Eberron. The line I triggered on up there is the presence of powerful individuals. Eberron has fewer high level npcs, and many powerful NPCs are npc classes.

In the same way, you, the GM, are in charge of demographics. Depending on the way you lay out your world, a 10th level character may be a promising beginner or a champion of ages.

This doesn't even get into more serious tweaks like XP tweaks offered in the DMG, and other tweaks in Unearthed Arcana and third party products like Iron Heroes and Advanced GM's Guide.



> If by "low-magic," you mean no magic shops, characters defined by their personal abilities rather than their 30 piece magical accessory set, and worlds where the spell effects of low-level D&D spells aren't commonplace, then yeah, I guess maybe I do mean low-magic.
> 
> I guess if that's what people want out of D&D, it's not my game anymore. However, I am just asking. Am I that much in the minority?




It may or may not be. It's really sort of irrelevant -- if what the game offers you out of the box is not what you want, you are confronted with changing things if you want better satisfaction.

What I would not agree with is the notion that you are helpless. GMs can and should take charge of the feel of their game, but too many don't. One also should not fret that third party products are to be relied upon to get you a feel you want... you should be happy people are putting them out! They are there to help you! If a product does something for you easier than you can do it yourself, then that's a boon to you.


----------



## Psion (Jun 22, 2006)

Michael Silverbane said:
			
		

> Andor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Me either. I don't see any passage in the book implying that every city has any item you could want... it just caps the value of items that can be found. I have brokers that can get you some items, but unless you comission someone, availability is a crapshoot IMC.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jun 22, 2006)

beepeearr said:
			
		

> It's funny, but I remember the previous editions much more differently then you.  I most  remember scouring every inch of a dungeon looking for every single gp and magic item that I could find.  What magic items we found defined our character since for the most part once your class was chosen you really didn't change much except for a new class ability here or there.  The majority of our cool "personal abilities" came from what ever magic item we happen to be weilding.  The DM could (and often would in my experience) map out how he wanted the players to play by handing out certain items as treasure.




This was my experiance with earlier additions as well, charaters were defined by magic items and personal history.  The thing to remember is in 1st and 2nd each making magic item required a seperate quest and rare components.  Also the miniumum level for making any permanent items was 12th (or 16th for the permanance spell) Logically this ment that utility magic items such as +2 swords or rings were a waste of time for a wizard.  

IMoC Most items found had a purpose and minor flare, such as the +1 sword that would hold poison, the unbreakable +2 axe of Herionus, etc.  Without wealth guidelines items considered very powerful could be found in small numbers - like the whole party getting rings of fire protection for a planar journey, or getting the flying carpet big enough for the whole group to ride. 

Now - 
Magic item shops are not part of my game, but large towns tend to have a temple or wizard who will make items to order. I also pay attention to the level limits - so rings and staves are far rarer than presented by the tables, and good luck finding some NPC who actually took craft rod, much less one with the specific meta magic feat you wanted.

The PCs responded by taking the feats themselves, each caster having 2 creation feats by 15th lvl.  - and they are regularly approched by NPCs looking for magic items - made to order .


----------



## Jarrod (Jun 22, 2006)

I think the idea of purchasing any magic item is linked to the newer, faster-paced modules that are coming out. When a character goes up a level or two within a short span of time, there isn't time to custom-craft items. At that point, the GM either says "no, you can't have it" (which is inherently unfair to some players) or says "yes, you can" (which is fair to all). 

If there's time in my campaign, crafting and such is the preferred method. But if the players are in the middle of battling the Doom Cult from Hades and the wizard has been saving up for months/years for a Headband of Intellect, I'm not going to say no. 

Interestingly, the crafting rules from the DMG2 (the ritual-based ones) mention _nothing_ of crafting time. The challenge you have to overcome, and the reward - those are both in there. But the time is short, which allows someone to actually make use of them.


----------



## Imp (Jun 22, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> In every game we get into town and the players just look at their cash, page through the DMG and hand the GM a list of what they want, and almost always get rubber stamped. Forget a limited selection. Also forget haggleing or any possibility that the shop keeper or townspeople might possibly cut you some slack just because you saved them, their livestock, and their immortal souls from horror and torment.



Heh.  Back in the day thumbing through the DMG and handing it to the DM with demands for anything was grounds for heavenly lightning bolts once per round, as I recall.  There's your problem.


----------



## A'koss (Jun 22, 2006)

For me, and I'm willing to bet for more than a few of you, that a lot of the perceived problems with D&D stem from the fact that it doesn't do a good job at mirroring the kind of fantasy (movies, literature) that we grew up with.

D&D only reflects itself. Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into _playing_ the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).

Now when I was younger, I ran "games" and not really _campaigns_, so it didn't matter to me all that much. D&D players are relatively easy to find and it was, essentially, the only game in town. But when you start building your own homebrews and try to run games closer to the fantasy that got you playing in the first place, you find that the D&D ruleset doesn't do a great job of it. And the higher level you go, the greater departure from the style of anything you recognize.

I remember one of my players once commenting on how HL play in D&D beared no resemblance to what he had envisioned an "EPIC FANTASY BATTLE" to be like. And you know... he was right. D&D, whether you love it or not, is it's own unique brand of fantasy and is really only really suited to running "D&D" worlds.


----------



## RFisher (Jun 22, 2006)

My matra of late has become: “Let D&D be D&D!”

Or, more generally: “Let [insert game name] be itself!”

I’ve been much happier since.

Which basically means I try not to push it too far. I can’t help but change some things to fit my preferences, but I try to moderate that tendency.

Except for a few games that really _are_ flexible enough that it really takes some pushing before I feel the boundaries. (Although it’s probably not so much flexibility as that the boundaries of those games happen to fall outside my myopia.)


----------



## Andor (Jun 22, 2006)

A'koss said:
			
		

> D&D only reflects itself. Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into _playing_ the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).




You'll notice that in all of those settings, the heroes (except for Elric) are fighting men battleing powerful but evil wizards, and that magic is an arcane art, known only to a very few, who are corrupted and depraved by their eldritch lore (including Elric).

The problem in D&D is that everybody wants to play wizards. They also want to be a good guy. So the game is set up to accomadate this desire. However, if magic is easy, and not inherently evil or at least dehumanizing, then it no longer looks like the worlds of the fiction you love, and instead becomes D&D.

You want Conan & Red Sonja? Play Iron Heros. You want PC magic users? Then you're looking at some variation of D&D.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 22, 2006)

Imp said:
			
		

> Heh.  Back in the day thumbing through the DMG and handing it to the DM with demands for anything was grounds for heavenly lightning bolts once per round, as I recall.  There's your problem.



It still is, IMC.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 22, 2006)

Imp said:
			
		

> Heh.  Back in the day thumbing through the DMG and handing it to the DM with demands for anything was grounds for heavenly lightning bolts once per round, as I recall.



Ah, yes, Ye Goode Olde Daze.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 22, 2006)

I find the notion that Monte would find Iron Heroes to be "inimicable" to his style of play an awfully presumptive one. D&D 3E isn't _his_ game. He was hired, as were other people, to update someone else's game (namely, it belonged to WotC and, perhaps, the fans). He was given strict mandates in that regard and, as someone who's written for other people's products for a living (in my case, I'm a journalist), your own desires typically get sublimated to the needs of the product.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 22, 2006)

A'koss said:
			
		

> For me, and I'm willing to bet for more than a few of you, that a lot of the perceived problems with D&D stem from the fact that it doesn't do a good job at mirroring the kind of fantasy (movies, literature) that we grew up with.
> 
> D&D only reflects itself. Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into playing the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).
> 
> Now when I was younger, I ran "games" and not really campaigns, so it didn't matter to me all that much. D&D players are relatively easy to find and it was, essentially, the only game in town. But when you start building your own homebrews and try to run games closer to the fantasy that got you playing in the first place, you find that the D&D ruleset doesn't do a great job of it. And the higher level you go, the greater departure from the style of anything you recognize.




I suppose it should come as no surprise to me that the person who seems to "get" my comment the most is one of my fellow _Iron Heroes_ fans. Mike really tapped into a certain mindset, didn't he? 

In defense of Eberron, from our conversations, I think Keith would "get" what I'm talking about. The reason high-level PCs are "rare" in Eberron is to prevent the PCs from being "utterly irrelevant" at low levels. For the record, I have to say I LIKE Eberron and I'd probably like Ptolus, as long as the system keeps the "game-isms" from adversely impacting the realism (suspension of disbelief, actually) of the setting.

Monte made a comment that he wasn't sure about character "retraining" (per PHB II) because "it would hurt the 'suspension of disbelief' if a character could change his skillset 'every month or so.'"

Let me state that I have NO problem with retraining rules. However, if I were operating under the same assumptions, I'd have to agree with Monte. But here's the difference. Monte's assuming a character levels up EVERY MONTH. And THAT makes me twitch. If I operated under the same assumption, I'd be forced to agree with him. Fortunately, I don't, and so the retraining rules don't upset my suspension of disbelief.

Of course, if I operated under the same assumption as Monte, the simple act of leveling up every month is what would make me twitch, not just the rebuilding part.

As an aside, it's nice to know I can cause such a lively, and productive, debate.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 22, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I find the notion that Monte would find Iron Heroes to be "inimicable" to his style of play an awfully presumptive one.




If I'm in error, I'll happily apologize. Monte has made no secret of two opinions in everything I've ever read of his writings about fantasy roleplaying games:

1. That his favorite classes are the ones that cast spells.
2. That he likes his "fantasy" to be "over-the-top" "high-magic."

By contrast, _Iron Heroes_ offers a whole lot of love for the non-spellcasters in what most people would call a "low-magic" assumed setting. I don't think I'm out of line to believe that's not Monte's "preferred style." But like I said, if I'm wrong, I apologize.

For the record, I'm using "style" to mean "setting and tone."


----------



## A'koss (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I suppose it should come as no surprise to me that the person who seems to "get" my comment the most is one of my fellow _Iron Heroes_ fans. Mike really tapped into a certain mindset, didn't he?



I only wish Mike had stuck around for another year or two with Malhavoc - long enough to generate some more IH goodness and perhaps even IH 1.5.



> Let me state that I have NO problem with retraining rules. However, if I were operating under the same assumptions, I'd have to agree with Monte. But here's the difference. Monte's assuming a character levels up EVERY MONTH. And THAT makes me twitch. If I operated under the same assumption, I'd be forced to agree with him. Fortunately, I don't, and so the retraining rules don't upset my suspension of disbelief.



Unfortunately I'm not all that familiar with the new retraining rules being away from D&D for about 8-10 months now but I can comment on why level advancement is faster in 3e than in previous editions. Probably before even the earliest serious development of 3e WotC did some market research and found that the majority of D&D players played very infrequently (I forget now what the average was now, perhaps 1/month or every two weeks maybe). Anyway it was decided advancement would be made swifter by default so they typical player would see some kind of advancement as they played. 

I can understand why they did that and that even the hordes of EnWorlders by no means make up more than a mere fraction of the D&D players out there. There are plenty of options to stretch out advancement (personally mine's all story-based) so I'm generally unconcerned on that front so long as the players are happy with it.



> As an aside, it's nice to know I can cause such a lively, and productive, debate.



Indeed, kudos on this interesting thread.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> Obviously. That's why I was careful to include the word baseline. Honestly it's more for the GM's benefit that the players.
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to play in a game that _didn't_ have such a shop in it. In every game we get into town and the players just look at their cash, page through the DMG and hand the GM a list of what they want, and almost always get rubber stamped. Forget a limited selection. Also forget haggleing or any possibility that the shop keeper or townspeople might possibly cut you some slack just because you saved them, their livestock, and their immortal souls from horror and torment.




Ok, this seems like a decent polling idea, so... Let's see how many have magic shops.

As far as literature goes, well, the game in play resembled the lit in very, very limited ways.  The fact that every party contained at least two spell casters and usually 5 or 6 characters meant that it didn't really resemble anything by the "classic" S&S authors.


----------



## Delta (Jun 22, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> You'll notice that in all of those settings, the heroes (except for Elric) are fighting men battleing powerful but evil wizards, and that magic is an arcane art, known only to a very few, who are corrupted and depraved by their eldritch lore (including Elric).
> 
> The problem in D&D is that everybody wants to play wizards. They also want to be a good guy. So the game is set up to accomadate this desire. However, if magic is easy, and not inherently evil or at least dehumanizing, then it no longer looks like the worlds of the fiction you love, and instead becomes D&D.




That's a pretty good observation. _Unearthed Arcana_ "Sanity Loss from Spellcasting" (p. 196), here I come!


----------



## CF (Jun 22, 2006)

I guess the new D&D (opposed to Ye Olde D&D and AD&D) is experiencing since it's begining a kind of "armamentist race" regarding it's characters powers.

I mean. The settings are getting more "powerfull" because they are trying to accomodate the power that the player characters usually have. And the player characters are getting increasilly more powerfull with almost every book in order to shine out from the "rest of the world".

Back when I played AD&D (and YOD&D), the characters where really important from the begining. The 1st level warrior was a fully trained soldier. The 1st level cleric was one of the few people his god actually granted power. 1st level was like a barrier that separated the true heroes from the rest of the world.

Nowadays some of my players (actually, the ones more system-savy) ask me to start the game from 3rd or 5th level in order to be heroes, and not a bunch of nobodies. And I really do feel like they're only "heroes" as the 1st level people from AD&D when they reach the 3rd level.

And that's what bugs me: D&D is going too Dragon Ball Z for me. The rules are trying to raise the powerlevel bar every now and then in order to help the characters shine. But this seems to only make the characters need more and more powers to do so.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> But here's the difference. Monte's assuming a character levels up EVERY MONTH. And THAT makes me twitch. If I operated under the same assumption, I'd be forced to agree with him.




Where does this assumption see print? Is it just in Ptolus?


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 22, 2006)

Fellow Iron Heroes maven though I may be, I'll have to disagree with the OP on this one... or rather, suggest that the narrative he's detailing might need some refining. 

IMHO, there are really only two reasons why D&D 3e might seem to suggest a particular fantasy subgenre now as opposed to in previous editions:

1) Previous editions were more open-ended than 3e about certain concepts like balance between classes, the effect of a mix of classes on successful completion of encounters, and especially the availability, means of creation, and suggested distribution of magic items. In reality, it's no easier or more difficult to play a gritty Thieves' World style game, a pseudo-historical Vikings game, or a classical-period God of War pastiche game in 3e than in any previous edition; it's just that there actually _are_ play balance issues related to changing the rules that are enumerated in the books now. The basic system engine is clearly capable of being adapted to low-magic or different-genre games; witness Midnight, IH, Grim Tales, etc etc etc. The kicker is that designers take the changes required to effect lower magic into the mechanics themselves. 1e and 2e included no rules or guidelines as to how to run an encounter differently for a party of four characters with a few potions and a +1 item or two as opposed to a party with a fighter clad in +5 plate mail with the feared hammer/girdle/gauntlets combination. 3e does. That seems like a feature rather than a genre-informing "bug" to me; if you _know_ the mechanical effect ascribed to something, it's easier to tinker with it.

2) D&D designers have created settings like Eberron and Ptolus in which a logical extrapolation of D&D informs the flavor and nature of the game world itself. This is something that has been discussed at long length from the halcyon days of Arduin and early 1e; I've read letters by several gamers who created wacky magitech-ish worlds featuring cleric-run hospitals, magical streetlights, teleport-pad cargo transports, etc., and I've been in a few games with this sort of flavor. However, the potential for magic to transform a setting was simply ignored or worked around for much of the history of the game by setting designers, who clearly wanted to fit a squarish but round-looking peg (D&D, a game ostensibly designed for high-fantasy/sword-and-sorcery roleplaying but sometimes fitting a superhero-level genre) into a thoroughly round hole (the classic fantasy world). 

I don't really think that this signals a departure in how D&D actually gets played; as Psion mentioned, demographics are in the hands of the DM, as (really speaking) are magic and magic items; there is a reason those are called _guidelines_. The nice thing about this sort of discussion, however (and perhaps the nice thing about 3e, having made this transparent) is that we can talk specifically and explicitly about how to make D&D conform better to the genres we like, should those genres involve changing base assumptions of the game system. Hence the approach behind, say, Iron Heroes.

Incidentally, I'd disagree that 3e has somehow raised the power bar; if anything, the PHB and DMG pretty explicitly spell out the fact that members of PC classes are exceptional individuals, and 3e does well by introducing a comprehensive set of NPC classes. The demographics also help to keep high-level PC-class folks pretty uncommon. In fact, if anything, 3e has afforded some setting designers (cough *FR* cough) the opportunity to tone down some of the NPC power in existing settings.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2006)

> And that's what bugs me: D&D is going too Dragon Ball Z for me. The rules are trying to raise the powerlevel bar every now and then in order to help the characters shine. But this seems to only make the characters need more and more powers to do so.




ROTF.  Would help if people would actually WATCH the shows they use for comparison.  If PC's were like DBZ characters, they would be the weakest putzes on the block, constantly have their butts handed to them by obviously superior enemies and only survive by the deus ex machina arrival of another super powered NPC.  

It's funny, Quasketon has a fantastic series of posts talking about the level advancements between various modules.  1e modules advanced PC's at EXACTLY the same rate as 3e modules up to about 9th level.  

Now, one thing I do agree with is the assertion that 1e PC's were far more important out of the chute.  True.  That's because, by about 7th level, they could take on the largest of dragons and reasonably expect to win.  By 9th level, there was pretty much nothing other than the largest of demons that could threaten the characters.

Yes, 3e characters are more "powerful" in that they can mechanically have higher numbers.  But, compared to the encounters designed in the system, 1e characters are FAR more powerful.


----------



## hong (Jun 22, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Fellow Iron Heroes maven though I may be, I'll have to disagree with the OP on this one... or rather, suggest that the narrative he's detailing might need some refining.




What rule slawyer said.


----------



## Nyaricus (Jun 22, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> In 1e, the rules were secondary to the feel, whereas in 3rd edition the feel is secondary to the rules.



For whatever reason, this has struck a cord with me, and I'd have to agree.

hmmm :\


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Jun 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ROTF.  Would help if people would actually WATCH the shows they use for comparison.  If PC's were like DBZ characters, they would be the weakest putzes on the block, constantly have their butts handed to them by obviously superior enemies and only survive by the deus ex machina arrival of another super powered NPC.




Plus, they'd spend ten sessions "powering up" before doing anything.  Heh.

Later
silver


----------



## pogre (Jun 22, 2006)

I'm not sure I completely understand the OP, but the title of this thread may me smile.

I do think there is something to be gleaned about levelling. Whenever their is a poll about the most popular levels to play at the sweet spot is around 6th-8th level. I would reference some threads, but sadly I have no search ability as Morrus is still sroting the cs accounts.

It might be a neat idea to slow down the progression dramatically after 5th level or so to stick in that "sweet spot" longer. For folks weho enjoy faster levlling, like me, we could stick with the current system. Folks who are not to keen on epic or even ditch D&D campaigns every time they get above 12th level, this would seem to suit them well.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 22, 2006)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Fellow Iron Heroes maven though I may be, I'll have to disagree with the OP on this one... or rather, suggest that the narrative he's detailing might need some refining.




As the mentioned OP, reading what you have to say, I'm not really sure I disagree with you. I'll be more specific as I comment on the rest of your post...



> IMHO, there are really only two reasons why D&D 3e might seem to suggest a particular fantasy subgenre now as opposed to in previous editions:
> 
> 1) Previous editions were more open-ended than 3e about certain concepts like balance between classes, the effect of a mix of classes on successful completion of encounters, and especially the availability, means of creation, and suggested distribution of magic items. In reality, it's no easier or more difficult to play a gritty Thieves' World style game, a pseudo-historical Vikings game, or a classical-period God of War pastiche game in 3e than in any previous edition; it's just that there actually are play balance issues related to changing the rules that are enumerated in the books now. The basic system engine is clearly capable of being adapted to low-magic or different-genre games; witness Midnight, IH, Grim Tales, etc etc etc.




The problem is that technically speaking, Grim Tales, IH, etc. are not D&D. They're subgenres of "D20 Fantasy" or even "OGL Fantasy." They share basic mechanics of D&D, but diverge enough from the basic game that they can't even CALL themselves D&D. Yes, they meet a need in the market. But my contention is that the "Core Rules" have been tailored to a particular subgenre. Obviously, if it's the dominant subgenre, that's the reality of the marketplace, but I'm not sure if it's in the best long-term interest of the game for it not to cater terribly well to "generic fantasy" as a genre.



> The kicker is that designers take the changes required to effect lower magic into the mechanics themselves. 1e and 2e included no rules or guidelines as to how to run an encounter differently for a party of four characters with a few potions and a +1 item or two as opposed to a party with a fighter clad in +5 plate mail with the feared hammer/girdle/gauntlets combination. 3e does. That seems like a feature rather than a genre-informing "bug" to me; if you know the mechanical effect ascribed to something, it's easier to tinker with it.




True. Very true. The particular genre (high-magic, lots of magic items) has been written into the core rules in the name of game balance. And D&D (that is, Core Rules D&D) doesn't provide any guidelines to those interested in a different genre (or style, to use my original word) of fantasy game.

I realize it's possible to do things differently, but what's that saying? "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."



> I don't really think that this signals a departure in how D&D actually gets played; as Psion mentioned, demographics are in the hands of the DM, as (really speaking) are magic and magic items; there is a reason those are called guidelines. The nice thing about this sort of discussion, however (and perhaps the nice thing about 3e, having made this transparent) is that we can talk specifically and explicitly about how to make D&D conform better to the genres we like, should those genres involve changing base assumptions of the game system. Hence the approach behind, say, Iron Heroes.




And the question I was trying to raise for discussion was basically the following: should Core Rules D&D continue to specifically and by default support the genre of gaming it currently does, or should it be presented in a more adaptable way wherein changing from that genre to a different one is more feasible, without the need for a "variant player's handbook."

I don't feel there's been any particular power creep, other than the in-game assumption about how long attaining a new level takes (not in terms of real world playtime, but in "In-game" time). I guess that's not even really "power creep" so much as it's just 'suspension of disbelief' jarring (for me, at least). For the record, Monte's comment about taking a month to level was made on his boards...

And, just to be clear, I don't mean to pick on Monte. His comments are just the ones that got me REALLY thinking about this subject, so he gets due credit for the inspiration.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I don't feel there's been any particular power creep, other than the in-game assumption about how long attaining a new level takes (not in terms of real world playtime, but in "In-game" time). I guess that's not even really "power creep" so much as it's just 'suspension of disbelief' jarring (for me, at least). For the record, Monte's comment about taking a month to level was made on his boards...




When I think back to the AD&D adventures I played as a teenager, gaining a level in game time took about exactly the same time as now. You went into a dungeon, came out later the same day and were a level higher.

Training rules? I've discarded them in every game I've ever run. I've tried to use them, but except in a plotless dungeon crawl, they disrupt the pace of the story. Even Gary Gygax has said they weren't normally used in his games.

The pace of gaining levels in terms of time played has changed - but the primary change is for high-level play. At low levels, it has been noted by Gary that a PC should be able to progress to 9th level in about a year of play. (So, about 1 level per six sessions). Compare to the 1 level per four sessions presumed for 3e.

At high levels, the rate recommended was 2-3 levels per year of play, which is where the big difference came.

Just as a side note: the XP tables in 1e are highly deceptive. They actually allow very fast levelling of low-level PCs with high-level parties, but the actual time taken to gain levels does not double with the XP required...

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2006)

> True. Very true. The particular genre (high-magic, lots of magic items) has been written into the core rules in the name of game balance. And D&D (that is, Core Rules D&D) doesn't provide any guidelines to those interested in a different genre (or style, to use my original word) of fantasy game.




Again, this is a blatant fallacy.  Comparisons of adventures between editions shows that 1e was chock a block with magic.  Finish off any given module and you had a golf bag full of magic.

But, that's not just limited to modules.  It was written right in the rules as well.  And, to prove it, all you have to do is look at the paladin in 1 and 2e.  One of the biggest disadvantages of the paladin was the fact that he could "only" own 4 magic weapons, a magic suit of armor, magic shield and 4 more magic items.

Think about that for a sec.  A major penalty to a class was TEN magic items.  For that to actually BE a restriction meant that everyone else should have MORE than ten.   To hit that limit in a 3e game, at bare minimum of +1 weapons and armor and 4 potions would take a 7th level party.  

The assumption in earlier editions is that each member of the party would have 11+ magic items.  Arguements that earlier editions were less about the magic items are ridiculous when viewed in this light.  Assuming a standard 6 man party in 1e, you needed SEVENTY magic items to hit the paladin's limit.  And, if you never did, then this limitation was meaningless.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 22, 2006)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Probably before even the earliest serious development of 3e WotC did some market research and found that the majority of D&D players played very infrequently (I forget now what the average was now, perhaps 1/month or every two weeks maybe). Anyway it was decided advancement would be made swifter by default so they typical player would see some kind of advancement as they played.




Almost.  They may have found that out, but the real basis is they found out that most campaigns lasted no more than a year. They designed the advancement system so that players could hit 20th level in a year of regular play (IIRC, it assumes weekly play).

One of the things I like about Eberron, at least as Keith presents it (which isn't necessarily how WotC views it), is that it tweaks the assumptions about D&D while using it.  You won't find clerics healing left and right because clerics are relatively rare (doubly so high level clerics).  If you go to a church you are as likely to find it run by an expert as run by a spellcaster (and the spell caster is likely an adept).  Of course, you can go to a Jorasco house of healilng, but even there you won't often find high level spells, and Raise Deads are incredibly rare.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, this is a blatant fallacy.  Comparisons of adventures between editions shows that 1e was chock a block with magic.  Finish off any given module and you had a golf bag full of magic.




That's true, but I'm suspicious of these analyses as written.  They tend to assume the PCs will find all the treasure in an adventure and could make use of it.  That wasn't always the case.

Also, if you read the treatises in various sources (including _The Dragon_), you'll see a major effort was recommended to keep PCs poor.  Keep the PCs from making off with the treasure, make things as difficult as possible for them to keep the treasure, you only get XP if you manage to convert the treasure to gold - not for keeping the magic items and using them.  Be sure to tax the PCs when they leave the dungeon or enter a city, the local government wants their cut.  Don't forget that spells like Fireball were much more deadly to party items than they are now.



			
				A'koss said:
			
		

> Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into _playing_ the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).




I'll agree with this.  I don't think much of Eberron was designed to resemble any specific fantasy.  However, I think the D&D aim was secondary, it was designed to resemble _adventure_ stories.

However, I haven't seen too many RPGs that are really designed to emulate the various fantasy novels that inspired D&D, or have inspired others to play D&D.  For one, most of them are about individuals and very small groups.  Where are the parties of multiple characters floating around?  LotR is one place, but they split up at various times.

Conan?  He was a single hero with a few companions at times (who rarely lasted long).  Fahfrd & the Gray Mouser?  We have two heroes, but very rarely more than that in an adventure (and those were published after D&D was released, IIRC).  Elric?  The Eternal Champion & his companion.  Not a party (although Elric hits the party level more often than most - even if some of those times they are all versions of himself).  King Arthur?  Usually the quests were performed by single knights, rarely companies of them.  Most of the fantasy fiction with "parties" of characters developed recently from authors who were playing D&D or other FRPGs. 

The very nature of an RPG being a *group activity* usually precludes having campaigns that feel like the classic novels.  As RPGs developed, players realized this and many decided they prefered the worlds to feel like the game they were playing, rather than supposed worlds simulated, but not feeling the same because of the needed changes to make a fun game.  That's how the current "make the game world fit the game" trend started.


----------



## happyelf (Jun 22, 2006)

I agree. The whole super-fantasy dungeon-crawl mindset, plus the hilarious economy issues, are an overly common feature of the game. I think a better approach would be to see PC's as exceptional, as the Ebberon setting does- but this kind of thinking should be the baseline, not a campaign-specific exception.


----------



## Imp (Jun 22, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Also, if you read the treatises in various sources (including _The Dragon_), you'll see a major effort was recommended to keep PCs poor.  Keep the PCs from making off with the treasure, make things as difficult as possible for them to keep the treasure, you only get XP if you manage to convert the treasure to gold - not for keeping the magic items and using them.  Be sure to tax the PCs when they leave the dungeon or enter a city, the local government wants their cut.  Don't forget that spells like Fireball were much more deadly to party items than they are now.



I don't remember actually bookkeeping much of Fireball's damage vs. items (or really ever using that little item saving throw table at all), but there were lots of traps and monsters that ripped up your items, that beastly training costs system (gods forbid you should have tried to follow that as written if you were a thief), and a general emphasis on "adventure hard, live fast, blow through cash" that showed up in a number of cost-per-week guidelines I remember.  Have thieves make off with the party's treasure!  Oh, yeah, and then there were the strongholds.  Those were expensive, and the way things were written they were kind of a default goal for characters, not like now.  When I played AD&D _I_ wanted strongholds more often than not!  Or at least a ship or a little dungeon for my thief to secret his cache, cash, whatever in.  PCs got rich, and there were lots of magic items - a 7th-level AD&D fighter was way more item-rich than his 3e counterpart usually.  But they were not at all encouraged by the rules to focus their "magic item wealth" into particular objects and properties they'd find advantageous.  You walked around with that +1 longsword, +1 dagger, +4 vs. giants, and that +2 morningstar because that's what you found.  shrug.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 22, 2006)

I always thought it was funny, the whole "Magic is rare, special, and unique, and magic items are all rare and priceless and nobody would ever sell them ever", when you could go into any random dungeon, kill a few dozen orcs, skeletons and oozes, and come out with a wheelbarrow full of magic items.  Magic is supposed to be mysterious and rare, but the local temple always has a few clerics who can cast Cure Light Wounds (but charge so much for it that only the very wealthy adventurers and nobles could afford it, so much for charity and helping the meek!).  

At least 3rd Edition got rid of that contradiction.  Magic items are a commodity that is valuable, like high technology in the real world.   How to make them is known only to a few, and how they work is only vaguely known to most people, and how to operate some of the more powerful ones takes training and practice, but it's available to anybody with money and need.  This means that wealthy merchants, powerful nobles, or well-off temples can have whatever magic they need to protect themselves.  

In my campaigns, I don't run "wal mart" style magic shops, but if it's the Forgotten Realms I'm running, in any major city you can find just about any standard item with enough time.  Thayan Enclaves will cast just about any (non-good) spell and make just about any (non-good) magic item for the right price, and even without them there are enough wizards, powerful churches, and large merchant companies on a high-magic world that getting pretty much any non-artifact item out of the DMG is only a matter of time and money.

In other campaign settings, at the default level of magic, basic magic items like +1 weapons and armor, lesser wondrous items or potions, low-level scrolls and the like are still very easy to get.  A 6th level Adept can turn those out (especially if he has a semi-wealthy patron like a merchant backing him), which means that many places will have at least a few basic items available for sale, and in major cities you can still find just about anything with enough time and effort.

Now, abstracting a few days of asking around and tracking down the item you want into just handing over a list of magic items and having the DM sign off on them isn't something I would do, but I could see how that could create the "wal mart" illusion.  Personally, I at least describe the process at least briefly, maybe roleplay out a key encounter if the PC's are asking for something major or that would raise eyebrows, and it does take a few days, if they want to rush it, that is a perfect reason for a Gather Information check to find the right people fast, and maybe a Diplomacy check to talk people into selling things they might normally keep.

As for XP progression.  Back in the 2e days, with the gaming groups I was a part of after a year of gaming weekly, which was a typical campaign, would get the PC's to 12th to 14th level (depending on class and XP bonus from high Prime Requisite), maybe 13th to 15th for a high-powered campaign.  You wanted 20th level?  That would take a year and a half, or two years, which was the domain of rare campaigns people would remember for years to come.  Above 20th level?  That's reserved for rare, special NPC's only, because campaigns just never went that long.

Now a year-long campaign gets you 18th to 20th level (although spending XP on magic items and spells means the casters are normally a level lower than the warriors at high levels IME).  20+ from 1st level isn't a practical impossibility, but it is still the domain of the rare and special campagin.  

So, I don't think D&D has become "too D&D", I just think that it got over some of the contradictions in earlier editions, and it chose one side of the contradiction to side with.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Also, if you read the treatises in various sources (including The Dragon), you'll see a major effort was recommended to keep PCs poor. Keep the PCs from making off with the treasure, make things as difficult as possible for them to keep the treasure, you only get XP if you manage to convert the treasure to gold - not for keeping the magic items and using them. Be sure to tax the PCs when they leave the dungeon or enter a city, the local government wants their cut. Don't forget that spells like Fireball were much more deadly to party items than they are now.




However, there was this huge gap between what was being suggested and what was actually being done.  1e and 2e were almost schitzophrenic in that they would talk about having characters with no stats over 13 but every published module, including tournament modules blew this out of the water.

Heck, take Dragonlance.  DL is usually heralded as a pretty successful setting and certainly not a bad one to emulate.  Yet, of the original 8 characters in DL1, there were 5 fighter types, 3 had 18 percentile strengths and Caramon was actually the weakest of the three despite the novels.  And, none of the 8 had a single stat below 10, including Raistlin.

As far as treasure being difficult to find, again, this is a myth.  Look at most of the modules from the 1e era and you'll see that the treasure is not exactly tricky.  I remember the hardest thing to find in Keep on the Borderlands was a rope of climbing that was being used to tie a chest shut.  The fact that it was called out specifically in the text pretty much gave that one away.  In Hommlet, the biggest treasure comes from Lareth and he's carrying it!

Sure, the DMG talked about all sorts of ways to keep the party poor.  Whoopee.  Every other source, was shoveling more and more phat loot on top of the characters as fast as they could.  I remember Q's writeup on the G series.  You finished the modules with over ONE MILLION gp in CASH.  This didn't even start to touch the pages of magic items you could find.

The idea that there was this period of fantastic gaming that drew from classic sword and sorcery sources is a joke.  It might have existed, but, it certainly never saw print.

At least I never get the sense that 3e is trying to fight itself with how it presents the game.  There's no huge chasm between what's in the DMG and what I play when I pick up a Dungeon magazine.  DnD has always been "DnDish".  It's just that now, we're honest enough to admit it and not try to hide it behind some sort of high brow rhetoric that it's about the "story" or the "feel" of the game.


----------



## jasin (Jun 22, 2006)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> There was a great Dragon artical called "the Game that Wasnt" that explored the hipocracy of the DMG advice against giving out too much treasure and the actual treasure tables and published scenarios.



Just anecdotal evidence, but my experience agrees with this. The single most impressive treasure I recall getting in 2E was when we killed a couple of random encounter gnolls and the DM actually used the treasure tables. We were left speechless at the amount of coins and potions those gnolls were packing.


----------



## jasin (Jun 22, 2006)

CF said:
			
		

> Back when I played AD&D (and YOD&D), the characters where really important from the begining. The 1st level warrior was a fully trained soldier. The 1st level cleric was one of the few people his god actually granted power. 1st level was like a barrier that separated the true heroes from the rest of the world.



This is utterly contrary to my experience. Of course, that's just anecdotal, but even though I've started game and asked that they be started above 1st level in 3E, I feel as more of a hero playing a 1st level 3E character than a 1st level 2E character (I started with 2E so I wouldn't know about D&D before that).


----------



## jasin (Jun 22, 2006)

My general thoughts on the subject...

Even though some of the people in my groups sometimes wistfully talk about 2E and how it had "soul" (while, implicitly, 3E doesn't), rationally, I think 3E is very similar to how 2E was. By extension, I find it easy to believe that this is how it always was.

The things where it's different:

We were all younger then, and the game was newer. We were 15, now we're 25. Some people were 25, now they're 35. Whatever. We're all getting older, and our opinions change, and familiarity breeds contempt. It's not 3E rules that make mind flayers not so scary anymore, it's the fact that you know exactly what a mind flayer is, and that you've already played in a dozen games that used them.

The incomparably tighter and more logical ruleset, which has the side effect of people not bothering fixing what ain't broke. Which, after enough games, can induce a more mechanistic and cold atmosphere of slavish adherence to the rules. For example, in 2E, I remember the DM rebalancing the characters every other session: when the toothpick-specialized fighter started feeling useless, well, we happened to find a +2 toothpick; when everyone else had gotten something, my bard learned the bladesong fighting style, which gave me the option of choosing each round whether I'd have +2 to attack or +2 to AC or a spell and a melee attack in the same round. 3E does encourage lazy DM-ing and playing in that you have guidelines for how much reasure people are supposed to have, which monsters they're supposed to be able to kill, different characters of equal levels are supposed to be equally powerful... but I think it's a rather convoluted argument to claim that the older rules were better because the older rules were crappier so they required more effort and attention from everyone.

The settings seem to be getting tigher and more logical, too, but I'm not sure this is a truly good thing. This is just a general impression, but I feel that the D&D of old (wherever that might have been) didn't have any qualms about mixing Zeus-worshipping bronze-breastplate-wearing longspear-wielding people with black-clad ninjas with warhorse-mounted knights with a red cross on their white tabards... if it was in a fantasy book or movie, it had a place in D&D. Nowadays, the trend seems to be to fit elements into the setting, so that while ninjas still consort with crusaders, it makes some amount of sense, within the context of the setting at least. This does have the negative effect that world sometimes feel more like SF settings than fantasy settings: more attention is given to internal consistency that emotional kick, which is arguably ultimately futile for a game with magic missiles and beholders, so that more is lost than gained. Eberron is a prime example of this kind of world, but pulls it off remarkably well, partly by messing only with the surface and keeping the core concepts more or less intact (the Aerenal elves are still tree-hugging possessors of ancient magic, even though their undead fetish means they look nothing like FR or Tolkien elves) or by presenting pulp emotional kicks under a fantasy veneer that fits the world (the Mines of the Giant King Solomon in Xen'drik, the insidious psionic Dr. Fu Manchu and the Riedran peril).

Eh. I now reread what I wrote and it sounds a bit confused. :\ I hope at least some of it gets across the way I meant it...


----------



## Andor (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The problem is that technically speaking, Grim Tales, IH, etc. are not D&D. They're subgenres of "D20 Fantasy" or even "OGL Fantasy." They share basic mechanics of D&D, but diverge enough from the basic game that they can't even CALL themselves D&D. Yes, they meet a need in the market. But my contention is that the "Core Rules" have been tailored to a particular subgenre. Obviously, if it's the dominant subgenre, that's the reality of the marketplace, but I'm not sure if it's in the best long-term interest of the game for it not to cater terribly well to "generic fantasy" as a genre.)




I think the problem here is you're looking at D&D as some kind of platonic ideal and that it and only it can meet your needs. This is nonsense. The game that matters is whatever game you play at your table. If you want to play D&D with Iron Heros feats and Grim Tales magic, then guess what? It's still D&D. If your player get handed a stack of house rules the size of a magazine, it's still D&D. Don't look at the logo, forget the branding, ignore what Jimmy-bob's blog says they are doing in his campaign. If you have players, and dice, and fun, then it's all good.


----------



## Henry (Jun 22, 2006)

I don't have a problem with the style that 3E was written in, because when it was written it was EXACTLY catered to the way we play games, and have played for at least 20 years.

--Levelling once a month? That's what we do, (about once per 3 or 4 sessions), and we STILL can't finish a campaign above 10th level, because of rotating DMs, player drop-outs, etc.

--Magic Acquisition? Slower in some than in others, but at least I have a CR to help guide me, and the DR rules have been changed such that magic power really isn't an issue anymore. You don't have to own a +3 weapon to take down a given beast, just silver, or magical, or cold iron, or what have you.

Since those assumptions were built in even in previous editions, We're actually playing now more to our style than we ever were -- like having a hand-me-down pair of gloves, and then buying a custom-tailored fitting pair.


----------



## Psion (Jun 22, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> You'll notice that in all of those settings, the heroes (except for Elric) are fighting men battleing powerful but evil wizards, and that magic is an arcane art, known only to a very few, who are corrupted and depraved by their eldritch lore (including Elric).
> 
> The problem in D&D is that everybody wants to play wizards. They also want to be a good guy. So the game is set up to accomadate this desire. However, if magic is easy, and not inherently evil or at least dehumanizing, then it no longer looks like the worlds of the fiction you love, and instead becomes D&D.




I've seen plenty of fighting men and scoundrels in my days.

In fact, my players seem a bit light on filling the role of wizard of late. It's been a while since I have had a single class wizard or sorcerer. All wizards in the last year have been multiclass with fighter or rogue... mixing in a few catalyzing PrCs as needed.

In short, I see a lot of dabblers in my game. In a way, it reminds me of Fafhrd & Grey Mouser of Leiber's books...

This is getting a bit anecdotal, but let me circle back around to the point: I'm entirely unconcerned by this. I gnash my teeth whenever I hear an argument that comes back to "D&D does not emulate my favorite novel." (I know from Andor's next paragraph, that's not what he is saying, but bear with me for a sec...) If people are by choice playing wizards preferentially, then obviously they don't feel any special need to emulate your favorite novel. And giving them a game that only does so would obviously fall short of serving their needs.



> You want Conan & Red Sonja? Play Iron Heros.




Fair enough. Though some might suggest that you play Conan.  Or Grim Tales, even.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 22, 2006)

I would just like to quickly add that I *prefer* the "new" style of D&D that's less medieval fantasy and makes magic a part of everyday life.  One of the reasons I love Eberron (and would probably enjoy Ptolus too if my group didn't utterly HATE the "magi-tech" and city-based stuff so that they would refuse to play either) is because it provided a logical evolution in a fantasy society with magic.  It's not like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk where it's essentially medieval Europe with magic added, but despite having all of these powerful wizards nothing has been done to improve society as a whole.  That said, however, I have nothing against settings like that, I just prefer the "new-age" D&D flavor.  I think that the D&D game has simply evolved over time, and if you ask me that's a good thing.


----------



## Shadowslayer (Jun 22, 2006)

A'koss said:
			
		

> D&D, whether you love it or not, is it's own unique brand of fantasy and is really only really suited to running "D&D" worlds.




Thats one of the the truth-iest statements I've ever heard here.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> If people are by choice playing wizards preferentially, then obviously they don't feel any special need to emulate your favorite novel. And giving them a game that only does so would obviously fall short of serving their needs.




Truth, there.

It is important to note that you can't please everybody all the time.  So, in design they chose to please the largest swath they could.  And they seem to have done that admirably.  "Network externalities" and "name recognition" aside - if the game stank for a majority of the players, it would have failed.  It didn't. 

Quite the contrary, I think it hard to imagine a product in such a fringe hobby doing better than 3e has done in the current market.  While it is not perfect, and certainly does not do all things well, it seems that the whole thing is a success.  So, what you wind up asking is - did they design D&D too well for their chosen market?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I don't think I'm out of line to believe that's not Monte's "preferred style."



Well, you said "inimicable." Do you think Monte goes around, punching people in the face if they don't have magic in their games?

And do people really have only one thing they like? I enjoy a wide variety of things, as do most people I know. I think basing your argument on some sort of adversarial premise is both unnecessary and almost certainly incorrect.

Like I said, I've done work for hire. It doesn't matter what my preferences are, my job is to do the work set before me. If he'd been hired to write the DMG and came back with Iron Heroes, he wouldn't have gotten paid.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The problem is that technically speaking, Grim Tales, IH, etc. are not D&D. They're subgenres of "D20 Fantasy" or even "OGL Fantasy." They share basic mechanics of D&D, but diverge enough from the basic game that they can't even CALL themselves D&D.



That is an artifact of the OGL system and the d20 engine. I've seen plenty of "rules variants" that pretty much had to be published in Dragon or by TSR prior to the issuance of 3e that diverged from the "core rules" of the current (A)D&D edition far more than IH or Conan do from D&D. 


> _Yes, they meet a need in the market. But my contention is that the "Core Rules" have been tailored to a particular subgenre. Obviously, if it's the dominant subgenre, that's the reality of the marketplace, but I'm not sure if it's in the best long-term interest of the game for it not to cater terribly well to "generic fantasy" as a genre._



I don't think it's so much that this edition is "tailored to a particular subgenre" as that the transparency of the rules finally allows us to _notice_ that this is how it plays out, both in principle and in practice.


> _I realize it's possible to do things differently, but what's that saying? "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."_



I might submit that, since the OGL allows lots of other "tools manufacturers," WotC might want to concentrate on turning out hammers and turning them out well.


> _And the question I was trying to raise for discussion was basically the following: should Core Rules D&D continue to specifically and by default support the genre of gaming it currently does, or should it be presented in a more adaptable way wherein changing from that genre to a different one is more feasible, without the need for a "variant player's handbook."_



I think it's difficult to _present_ that level of adaptability in the context of a system like D&D; not difficult for an individual DM to do it, but for a group of writers to have to codify it effectively in limited page space. Look at how many pages are spent on IH, Grim Tales, etc. Imagine having to write designers' advice on overcoming obstacles, etc. under several different sets of possible capabilities on the parts of the PCs. It seems a bit rough to me.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jun 22, 2006)

I think the biggest difficulty in having a discussion like this is trying to pin down what the game “really” used to be like. What do you use to contrast against what the game is like now?

If your only experience of 1st edition came from reading the DMG, you would be well within your rights to think that magic items in a D&D campaign should be exceedingly rare and wonderful, that treasure and new PC powers were to be meted out slowly, deliberately, and with utmost restraint.

Conversely, if your only experience came from reading through the classic G-D-Q series of modules, it would be only natural for you to conclude that magic and treasure are rather common, that levels should be piled on steadily and quickly, and that minor artifacts could conceivably be found hidden underneath piles of dirty socks or in buckets of fireplace ashes.

Second edition had a similar schizophrenia. The description of an ideal game in the DMG (heavy role-playing, limited magic) never really matched up with the published adventures or campaign settings. 

To my mind, the reams of advice given in the 1st and 2nd edition DMGs were always at odd with the fundamental nature of the game engine itself. The system was always constructed to support and reward the steadily increasing acquisition of PC power and abilities. Why fight this core mechanical foundation?

By failing to acknowledge the fundamental nature of the game, these older editions were unable to adequately address balance issues – which ironically led to more unbalanced campaigns. DMs were given a lot of general advice but almost no quantifiable tools or metrics to help keep their games in check.

To my mind, the third edition designers rightfully embraced the way the vast majority of players actually played the game. As such, they could build realistic, usable checks and balances into the system—quantifiable tools that a DM could really use like the wealth by level guidelines. 

As a result, while I think all editions of the game have their virtues, 3e is easily the best mechanically balanced and designed version. I don’t think D&D has become too D&Dish – I think it’s just embraced what it always has been

I’m currently running a retro 3.5e campaign that started with a conversion of module B1, moved to the Keep on the Borderlands, eventually wound up on the Isle of Dread. We’ve run through G1, G2, and now the PCs are battling their way through Snurre’s Hall. And while YMMV, I’ve got to say that throughout this entire campaign, the look and feel of the game has been remarkably similar to what it was “back in the day.” Except now, the encounters and the rewards are much better balanced, and we’re having far less arguments over the rules. In short, we’re having a lot more fun.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2006)

John Snow said:
			
		

> And the question I was trying to raise for discussion was basically the following: should Core Rules D&D continue to specifically and by default support the genre of gaming it currently does, or should it be presented in a more adaptable way wherein changing from that genre to a different one is more feasible, without the need for a "variant player's handbook."




I would also question the base assumption of this statement that Core Rules DnD specifically supports any genre beyond heroic fantasy which is an incredibly broad genre that encompasses a wide variety of sub-genres.  

A personal annecdote.  I'm running the World's Largest Dungeon.  My group is now 10th level.  They are at about 75% wealth for their level and have never been able to customize their equipment.  Everything they have, they have picked up on the way.  All of the encounters are straight from the SRD with no additional material (well, at least very little).  While they are struggling with some encounters, they are by no means getting hammered all the time.  The characters are 32 point buy, which makes them somewhat tougher than standard, and, with the bump in stats, they likely have the equivalent of stat buff items which would bring up their wealth to standard.

So, the idea that the game is balanced on a knife's edge and any wavering one direction or another does not meet my personal experience.  Not that my experience is universal by any stretch, but, within the context of this discussion where people are saying that Core DnD can onｌy be played one way, I think that it helps to point out that this assumption is perhaps not true.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly. They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control." And the characters were supposed to be "exceptional" so that low-level magic wasn't all that commonplace.



Some of these assumptions are demonstrably false.

See: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=160909


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 22, 2006)

Okay, so, basically you're all saying that D&D is its own unique genre/style of fantasy, and it doesn't model other genres well. Except that some claim it's perfectly easy to tweak, but Core D&D is the game most gamers like.

Maybe that's true. Maybe D&D is the way most D&D gamers like it. I certainly enjoy playing and want to keep playing. I'm perfectly capable of tailoring the game to the genre that I want. But I also want to see the game survive and grow its audience. And if the game is going to survive, it's going to have to attract new players - that is, people who have never played D&D before.

One argument that's been floated is that Core D&D has trouble attracting players because it's too "rules-heavy." Given the good, but not runaway, success of products like _Castles and Crusades_ and _True 20_, there's a certain segment that feels this way. The D20 system is designed to be easy to learn in play, and, in my experience, it is. Play through D&D (or ANY d20 system game) once and you can learn the basic mechanics of the game.  So I'm wondering if rather than the rules getting in the way, it's the genre conventions (D&Disms) that present the "barriers to entry" for attracting more players to the game.

Is the Core D&D concept universally appealing? Do people just "get it?" Again, maybe. Maybe D&D hit some kind of sweet spot in our mentality that it has near universal appeal and the real "barrier to entry" is people willing to become "gamers." So even though fantasy as a genre is experiencing a popularity boom in pop culture (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean), the game can't really benefit from it.

Maybe that's the case. No game OTHER than D&D has ever had its distribution or brand recognition, so the chances of any other roleplaying game cracking this nut is pretty slim. So what I'm suggesting is that maybe the game's conceits have marginalized its appeal.

I think I heard that Lester Del Rey used to say that he would allow 3 outlandish assumptions from a science fiction author (fantasy was included on this list). His reasoning was that any more than that and a large portion of your potential audience wouldn't "get it" and therefore, wouldn't buy it. As sci-fi as a genre developed, there were certain "genre conceits" that became "gimmes" with the audience. So they don't have to be listed in your "outlandish assumptions" - they just are.

To put it mildly, D&D now has WAY more than 3 assumptions built into it, over and above the "genre conceits" of high fantasy. Like I said, maybe I'm off-base, but pending the runaway success of a "rules-light" D&D, my money's on the larger potential audience having an issue with the assumptions of the game that are built into the Core Rules.

And like I said, given the issue of "brand recognition" ONLY D&D itself can tap into this audience.

Sorry for the long post.


----------



## Andor (Jun 22, 2006)

Interesting post, but I'd say that the majority of new players today are going to be more familliar with console and PC RPGs that owe their roots to D&D, than they are with the fantasy literature that spawned D&D itself. As such they are pretty well prepared for the stock D&D-isms like parties, quests and random encounters. There are more people playing World of Warcraft right now than have ever played D&D, yet because the creators of WoW play D&D and knew a good idea when they saw one, all of those people are now more likely to 'get' D&D than someone who has only read Morcock and Vance.


----------



## jasin (Jun 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, the idea that the game is balanced on a knife's edge and any wavering one direction or another does not meet my personal experience.



This is another important point.

Again with the anecdotal evidence, if we didn't like something in 2E, we changed it, and damn the torpedoes. In 3E, everyone's a bit more wary to do so... maybe age an experience just means we know the game better, but the game in itself is also much easier to know well. In 3E it's easy to see that running a game with no magic items means that characters will be more challenged by a given monster than "standard" characters, and that they'll have huge amounts of cash to spend on mundane luxuries like boats or strongholds (unless you change the treasure tables too), and that you'll _have_ to change the magic items part of the treasure tables...

And assuming that you've liked the game so far, you might be wary of upsetting the balance with these kind of domino effects.

But the game is not as well balanced as it seems, and more robust with respect to imbalances than it seems. Seriously, if someone today proposed two feats with the usefulness/power/minmaxing goodnes comparable to Power Attack and Toughness, would you call them both balanced and include them in your game?

By the time you're getting fed up with straight too D&D-ish D&D, you're probably experienced enough that you can keep things under control even if you shake them up a bit. So do it! Don't like the preponderance of magic items? Cut it. The PC will be too weak? Use weaker monsters. Sure, it's more work since now you can't rely on the CRs even to the extent to which that is possible in a strictly by the book game, but it's not any more than you had to do in default 2E, when there were no CRs and no wealth guidelines at all!


----------



## jasin (Jun 22, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> Interesting post, but I'd say that the majority of new players today are going to be more familliar with console and PC RPGs that owe their roots to D&D, than they are with the fantasy literature that spawned D&D itself.



Right. For example, ISTM that the idea of priests as spellcasting half-warriors half-healers is becoming ubiquitous in (non RPG) gaming, even though I'd be hard pressed to think of a character like that in the usually quoted original sources of inspiration for D&D.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jun 22, 2006)

Thanks, Joshua Randall. I was about to say that.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 22, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> When I think back to the AD&D adventures I played as a teenager, gaining a level in game time took about exactly the same time as now. You went into a dungeon, came out later the same day and were a level higher.



You must have been either outrageously good, outrageously lucky, or had a very easygoing DM...if we came out of a 1e adventure the same *week* we went in we thought we were doing well. 


			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Training rules? I've discarded them in every game I've ever run. I've tried to use them, but except in a plotless dungeon crawl, they disrupt the pace of the story.



I've always had training requirements.  Then again, the story pacing (usually) takes that into account.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> The pace of gaining levels in terms of time played has changed - but the primary change is for high-level play. At low levels, it has been noted by Gary that a PC should be able to progress to 9th level in about a year of play. (So, about 1 level per six sessions). Compare to the 1 level per four sessions presumed for 3e.
> 
> Just as a side note: the XP tables in 1e are highly deceptive. They actually allow very fast levelling of low-level PCs with high-level parties, but the actual time taken to gain levels does not double with the XP required...



Also keep in mind that 1e as-written gave out ExP for treasure found, so stumbling on to a decent hoard could improve your skills in a hurry.   I got rid of this idea, and tweaked the level tables to allow much faster bumping at mid and high levels.  Result: the overall pace of advancement...while slow...has remained reasonably steady.

Lanefan


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Given the good, but not runaway, success of products like _Castles and Crusades_ and _True 20_, there's a certain segment that feels this way.




Note that by WotC standards, C&C and T20 are not doing well. They are for d20, you can't compare them to D&D. 



> The D20 system is designed to be easy to learn in play, and, in my experience, it is. Play through D&D (or ANY d20 system game) once and you can learn the basic mechanics of the game.  So I'm wondering if rather than the rules getting in the way, it's the genre conventions (D&Disms) that present the "barriers to entry" for attracting more players to the game.




I think the success that D&D has as a game pretty much rules out this whole line of thought. There isn't really much barrier to entry at all. People are playing it, people are enjoying it, and that's more people than you seem to think.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think the success that D&D has as a game pretty much rules out this whole line of thought. There isn't really much barrier to entry at all. People are playing it, people are enjoying it, and that's more people than you seem to think.




Not really. Just because the game has been successful doesn't mean it couldn't me MORE successful. I'm raising the concern as a theoretical. That's why the topic is a question: "Has D&D become too D&Dish?" 

I suppose I need to clarify by what I meant by the original statement. Put another way, I guess I'm asking a few different questions:

1. Is D&D more caught up in its own particular "form" of fantasy than it used to be?
2. Does that "feel" detract from its ability to attract more players?
3. If so, what should be done, if anything?

The answer to the first question seems to be a resounding NO. Primarily, however, that "no" seems to come not because people think D&D IS NOT caught up in its own particular form of fantasy, but because it always HAS BEEN. Fair enough.

So if that's the case, should it stay that way? Hence question 2, to which I think the following post is relevant...



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> I'd say that the majority of new players today are going to be more familliar with console and PC RPGs that owe their roots to D&D, than they are with the fantasy literature that spawned D&D itself. As such they are pretty well prepared for the stock D&D-isms like parties, quests and random encounters. There are more people playing World of Warcraft right now than have ever played D&D, yet because the creators of WoW play D&D and knew a good idea when they saw one, all of those people are now more likely to 'get' D&D than someone who has only read Morcock and Vance.




That tends to answer question 2 with a resounding No. If a game based on D&Disms is doing better than D&D, then it's not the D&Disms hurting the game's success. So, if that's the case, it should be left alone and people who want to adjust the game for a different genre can take care of it themselves, or buy third-party products that do it. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

One could make the argument that console games are appealing to a whole different demographic than roleplaying games. Basically, WoW handles the core of what D&D is about while being easier to pick up and play as far as the vast majority of gamers are concerned.

In other words, MOST people who want to "kill things and take their stuff" are going to play WoW, not D&D, because it's easier to pick up and learn. So, D&D will remain a niche subset of gaming which serves those people who particularly enjoy the experience of face-to-face roleplaying games.

But debating that issue is a whole separate topic...I think.


----------



## Vanye (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly.




Yes, but that's because it required 2000xp for a fighter to hit second level, and 2500 for a wizard/mage.

It took a rogue only 1250, and a cleric 1500.

Levelling slowly, however, once you hit 10th level, was very true.   When it took 100,000+xp to level up, and you were getting 2-3k experince per encounter, it made a difference.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I suppose I need to clarify by what I meant by the original statement. Put another way, I guess I'm asking a few different questions:
> 
> 1. Is D&D more caught up in its own particular "form" of fantasy than it used to be?
> 2. Does that "feel" detract from its ability to attract more players?
> 3. If so, what should be done, if anything?




From my perspective ENWorld is not representative of the D&D gaming population as it stands. Or, more precisely, D&D's target demographic. The target demographic is much younger than the average ENWorlder, even I at "only" 26 years old. What you want out of the game, what you see as flaws, and such, are not actually flaws in the system. You can't say to yourself "I don't like this," and think that that detracts people from D&D because its a detracting matter for you or for me, or for the general thoughts expressed at ENWorld.

So, I think the answer to #2 is also a resounding NO.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In other words, MOST people who want to "kill things and take their stuff" are going to play WoW, not D&D, because it's easier to pick up and learn. So, D&D will remain a niche subset of gaming which serves those people who particularly enjoy the experience of face-to-face roleplaying games.




Anecdotal: I know many tabletoppers who also play WoW. WoW has attracted several demographics. I hang out at a forum dedicated to catering to female gamers of all types (even though I'm a guy), and we've got the old school red boxed set gamers, the CRPG players, free forming play by post roleplayers, and other types, and I know all these types who also play WoW. Heck, my dad, hitting his mid 50s and a businessman, plays WoW occasionally for fun!

WoW is an interesting phenomoinon.

But, yeah D&D will remain a niche subset of gaming, no matter what WotC does with it. I don't really mind that. I don't think taking the "D&D" out of D&D is going to make it more successful. In fact, it would probably make it less. 

I think the "shallow" front that D&D puts out is important to the nature of attracting new players. D&D is a game where you can kill things and take their stuff. It's simple. It's focus on combat means that its easy to pick up and play and new players won't feel so silly about it. Compare the amount of entry through D&D to WoD, for example. I think part of the reason for that is that most people aren't as interested in improvisational theater as they are about seeing their enemies driven before them.

People can move into a more immersive game as time goes on. Think of it as a gateway drug. Kill things and take their stuff, yeah... until next year you're running an intrigue campaign centered around a kingdom you created for the game.  Or they can just stay killing things and taking their stuff. It's all about the fun times, and magical item aquisition, crazy feats of insanity, and leveling up are all parts of it that make D&D as popular as it is.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> If I'm in error, I'll happily apologize. Monte has made no secret of two opinions in everything I've ever read of his writings about fantasy roleplaying games:
> 
> 1. That his favorite classes are the ones that cast spells.
> 2. That he likes his "fantasy" to be "over-the-top" "high-magic."
> ...





Well... From what I've seen come out of Malhavoc Press, and the products I've seen Mr Cook write, I'd consider him to be two things:

An excellent (and proven) author of gaming products.

A knowledgeable business man.


These two traits seem to allow him to both know what types of products will sell, and the people are looking for, and give him the ability to write them.

Iron Heros, while maybe not his normal "style," is a product people were demanding.

That's kind of how I see 3rd edition as well. Basically he (and many others) saw what people were asking for in D&D, or ignoring D&D for other products due to lack of, and found a way to work them in.

Even in second edition my players were always asking every shopkeeper they ever met if they happened to have any magic items... 

3rd edition, as others have said, doesn't say you have to have every shopkeeper sell magic, but a clearly defined rule set for the cost of a bought magic item helps aliviate those endless "Dude that's way to expensive!" arguments...


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 22, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> From my perspective ENWorld is not representative of the D&D gaming population as it stands. Or, more precisely, D&D's target demographic. The target demographic is much younger than the average ENWorlder, even I at "only" 26 years old. What you want out of the game, what you see as flaws, and such, are not actually flaws in the system. You can't say to yourself "I don't like this," and think that that detracts people from D&D because its a detracting matter for you or for me, or for the general thoughts expressed at ENWorld.
> 
> So, I think the answer to #2 is also a resounding NO.




I'm not actually trying to frame this strictly in terms of "what I like." I grant, my comments tend to be colored by "what I like" (mentioning Iron Heroes, etc.). But basically, I'm looking at a huge surge in the popularity of fantasy and thinking the following:

"Harry Potter books are hugely successful. It's hard to imagine that of all those millions of HP reading kids, more of them don't become D&D players. I wonder why that is..."

I can brush off _The Lord of the Rings_ movies. They're movies. I can brush off the popularity off fantasy video games (again, different, more passive level of involvement). But I can't look at the popularity of a series of novel like Harry Potter and not think that a substantial portion of  them would be as eager to play in Harry Potter's world (or something similar) as I was to play in Middle-Earth (or something similar) after reading the _Lord of the Rings._ And yes, I admit that the Harry Potter novels have magic shops and might not be any more "low magic" than default D&D is.

The point is D&D isn't getting those people. They're looking at D&D and thinking "huh, I'll pass." Or their parents and the other adults in their lives are looking at D&D and NOT thinking "Hmm, he likes Harry Potter, maybe he'll like THIS." D&D seems too different.

RPGs (all RPGs, D&D included) are games for gamers who read and want to be creative/imaginative. And D&D is no exception. In my mind, it seems more sensible to make the game appeal to readers who already have to imagine how the stories they're reading look (and who maybe could be encouraged to game), than to make it appeal to gamers (who'd have to be encouraged to read and be creative and imaginative).

Maybe that's an insurmountable problem. But maybe there's a way to appeal to that crowd of readers. I'm just suggesting that maybe D&D isn't doing as well as it could because it's become too focused on the "gaming" aspect and not focused enough on the "attracting new gamers" aspect.

Basically, I think the drug analogy is more apt trying to hook readers on "gaming" than trying to hook gamers on "reading and imagining."

Make sense?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> D&D isn't getting those people. They're looking at D&D and thinking "huh, I'll pass." Or their parents and the other adults in their lives are looking at D&D and NOT thinking "Hmm, he likes Harry Potter, maybe he'll like THIS."




This all comes from someone who hasn't read a single HP book, but has seen the movies, so with a grain of salt...

Are you sure? Isn't Harry Potter more like D&D than it is like the old pulps? Magic academies, prevalance of magical items, even gaining levels can be seen in Harry Potter as Harry seems to be up one level or so every book. Eberron brings that to a head with the prevalence of magic (minus the muggles?) to be very Potter-esque in my mind.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 22, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Iron Heros, while maybe not his normal "style," is a product people were demanding.




Actually, I think Iron Heroes meshes with Monte's style. When I think of Monte, I think of high fantasy, amazing earth shattering events, and riding moons from orbit as they come crashing down onto the planet. Big Things. And Iron Heroes, while low in magic, keeps the Big Things genre alive and well within its pages.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 22, 2006)

Okay, I give. I unjustly maligned Monte as being pro-wizard and pro-magic.  :\ 

But that wasn't the major point. Which was that D&D has particular conceits that are UNIQUE to D&D. And 3e, rather than leaving them there, chose to emphasize them. And in so doing, it separated the game from its root goal: emulating fantasy closely enough that people who enjoyed fantasy could PLAY fantasy. And before I get raked over the coals for it, I'll grant the high magic thing is not one of the conceits that's "unique" to D&D.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Are you sure? Isn't Harry Potter more like D&D than it is like the old pulps? Magic academies, prevalance of magical items, even gaining levels can be seen in Harry Potter as Harry seems to be up one level or so every book. Eberron brings that to a head with the prevalence of magic (minus the muggles?) to be very Potter-esque in my mind.




Yes, Harry Potter is more like D&D than it's like the old pulps. But D&D doesn't do a very good job of capturing the "feel" of Harry Potter. Harry's got some great "stuff" but he doesn't kill things to get it. He's got his magic, he's got his stuff, he lives in this cool magical world, and he has adventures in it.

I dunno. Obviously, I'm not making sense. Or are you arguing that D&D is enough like Harry Potter that it has attracted every Harry Potter fan who would be interested in gaming? If that's the point, fair enough. I'm not sure I agree, but fair enough.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Yes, Harry Potter is more like D&D than it's like the old pulps. But D&D doesn't do a very good job of capturing the "feel" of Harry Potter. Harry's got some great "stuff" but he doesn't kill things to get it. He's got his magic, he's got his stuff, he lives in this cool magical world, and he has adventures in it.




Ah true. Harry Potter has sort of that Superhero's Code (not to kill). Which isn't surprising, since its aimed at kids. I hadn't thought of that point. I don't know. Like I said, I don't read Harry Potter, so everything I say about it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 



> I dunno. Obviously, I'm not making sense. Or are you arguing that D&D is enough like Harry Potter that it has attracted every Harry Potter fan who would be interested in gaming? If that's the point, fair enough. I'm not sure I agree, but fair enough.




You might be right, I don't really know.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> But that wasn't the major point. Which was that D&D has particular conceits that are UNIQUE to D&D. And 3e, rather than leaving them there, chose to emphasize them. And in so doing, it separated the game from its root goal: emulating fantasy closely enough that people who enjoyed fantasy could PLAY fantasy. And before I get raked over the coals for it, I'll grant the high magic thing is not one of the conceits that's "unique" to D&D.




I'll say that I don't believe one of the design considerations for 3E was "let's get back to the roots."  Improving the game, gaining strong consistant rule foundations and generally "fixing" all the things that have been suggested over the previous 10 years were things.  3E did that admirably, although it might not have been to everyone's taste.  "Recapture the lapsed players who quit or moved to other RPGs, was another."  Again, it seems to have done admirably in that.

Even then, I think that "emulating fantasy closely enough that people who enjoyed fantasy could PLAY fantasy" wasn't the only goal in the beginning.  There were elements of that, but there were also elements of "let's move the war game to individual units in a Dungeon environment"  The dungeon has been there pretty solidly from the beginning, and that's not a major element of most fantasy stories.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 22, 2006)

IMO, Monte was the carbon paper that took fantasy as we knew it and applied real world rules to it that could be determined using dice.

He did a great job.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 22, 2006)

Well, let me throw out one example of an almost strictly D&D conceit that's been mentioned a few times throughout this thread.

One member of every adventuring party is a cleric: an adventuring priest who casts spells to heal people of their injuries. Why are they in D&D? Well...practical reasons mostly. D&D features combat, so we need a way for characters to recover quickly. Healing magic sounds like a good idea, but the game's creators thought it would be unbalanced to have the wizard cast healing spells. Enter - the cleric. Of course, we can't have a class that does nothing but hand out healing spells, so clerics get all kinds of other abilities too.

As the game wore on, the cleric's role was revised and expanded. What had originally been a necessary conceit for the fact that D&D was a game was justified in the context of the game world. Later, that context was used to justify further alterations to the cleric class. And variant classes were introduced that filled the same game role as the cleric but with different context. Now, 30-some years later, Core D&D has clerics, druids, and so on.

The cleric and druid are D&Disms. Why is "druid" a separate character class from "wizard?" Why does the druid's "wildshape" ability need to be a protected niche? The game has become more about preserving itself than modelling fantasy for its audience.

Some of these things are desired, of course, but certainly not all of them.


----------



## Psion (Jun 22, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The cleric and druid are D&Disms. Why is "druid" a separate character class from "wizard?" Why does the druid's "wildshape" ability need to be a protected niche? The game has become more about preserving itself than modelling fantasy for its audience.




Again, why should D&D be held to the goal of modeling a specific fantasy novel? Why is D&D not allowed to break it's own ground? Do people complain that the Game of Thrones does not model LotR? I think a fantasy (meta)setting has just as much license to do its own thing as any novel does. Moreso, since there are many things that work well in novels that don't work well in games, and vice-versa.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, let me throw out one example of an almost strictly D&D conceit that's been mentioned a few times throughout this thread.
> 
> One member of every adventuring party is a cleric: an adventuring priest who casts spells to heal people of their injuries. Why are they in D&D? Well...practical reasons mostly. D&D features combat, so we need a way for characters to recover quickly. Healing magic sounds like a good idea, but the game's creators thought it would be unbalanced to have the wizard cast healing spells. Enter - the cleric. Of course, we can't have a class that does nothing but hand out healing spells, so clerics get all kinds of other abilities too.
> 
> ...




do you know the background of the cleric or the druid?

the cleric just like the fighting man and the magic user were the only classes available in OD&D. clerics got some advantages from both the other classes and disadvantages of their own. they filled a unique niche. no spells at level 1. no edged weapons. ability to wear good armor. use of more magic items than fighting men less than magic users.

the druid on the other hand was introduced as an NPC class only. a hybrid of the magic user and the cleric class. when it went PC class the rules for PC classes had changed.

variable hit dice for hps although the cleric class which now included the druid was still a d6


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, let me throw out one example of an almost strictly D&D conceit that's been mentioned a few times throughout this thread.
> 
> One member of every adventuring party is a cleric: an adventuring priest who casts spells to heal people of their injuries. Why are they in D&D? Well...practical reasons mostly. D&D features combat, so we need a way for characters to recover quickly. Healing magic sounds like a good idea, but the game's creators thought it would be unbalanced to have the wizard cast healing spells. Enter - the cleric. Of course, we can't have a class that does nothing but hand out healing spells, so clerics get all kinds of other abilities too.




It recently hit me that I disagree with the idea that wizards can not cast healing spells. 

I play D&D/C&C with my sons, ranging from age 4 to 8. At this point, I do not want to confuse them with the idea of mythical gods and the worship of these gods. So I think I am just doing away with the cleric class in our game. I'll let wizards and sorcerers pick from any spell list.

My kids don't have any idea how to min/max yet, and even if they did, balance be damned.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ROTF. Would help if people would actually WATCH the shows they use for comparison. If PC's were like DBZ characters, they would be the weakest putzes on the block, constantly have their butts handed to them by obviously superior enemies and only survive by the deus ex machina arrival of another super powered NPC.




What like in the Forgotten Realms? 



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> if it's the dominant subgenre, that's the reality of the marketplace, but I'm not sure if it's in the best long-term interest of the game for it not to cater terribly well to "generic fantasy" as a genre.
> 
> See the problem, in my view, is that you're looking for something generic.  I've never enjoyed being generic.  Looking back, 1E thieves (for example) are totally generic.  Only levelup certain skills at certain levels on the proscribed chart.  2E did a much better job with that IMO.  3E even more so.  I don't WANT D&D to be generic and bland.  I've always preferred a more high-magic game.  It's why FR was more interesting than Greyhawk and Dark Sun was cooler than both of them   If you want a more generic fantasy, GURPS Fantasy is there to fill that need.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Jun 23, 2006)

Just as a point.

The "demographic" of MMORPG gamers is 30 years old, been playing computer games for about 10 years, and 50% female.

DnD dreams of being in this demographic.

You want DnD to grow?  Get more than a 5% female player base (According to the latest Dragon readership poll).


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The point is D&D isn't getting those people. They're looking at D&D and thinking "huh, I'll pass." Or their parents and the other adults in their lives are looking at D&D and NOT thinking "Hmm, he likes Harry Potter, maybe he'll like THIS." D&D seems too different.




I don't think they're 'looking' at D&D at all. I bet the vast majority of them don't even know it exists. There's been a lot of discussion about just why this is, but I think it comes down to the fact that if they have a choice of spending $65, it isn't going to be on a set of game books unless someone is teaching them first. That's still a tremendous amount of money for your average Harry Potter reader (And I still haven't seen anything that suggests that the Harry Potter crowd is moving on to read _other _ works of YA fiction or fantasy; if anyone knows differently, I'd like to hear it).


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 23, 2006)

It's all about selling product.  Nobody wants to purchase "yet" another game system in which they have to learn a whole set of new rules that could just as well have been D&D.
CONANRPG..case in point.

Too, players are not interested in abandoning their concept of the game.  Just ask anyone who is attempting to get players for a game system other than D&D..worse if you play D&D and it doesn't have pansy elves and annoying hobbits.  CONAN STOMP NASTY HOBBITZIZ AND NEVER COME BACK!

You can have the best new game on the market, logical, fast system, easy, customizable, great adventures and nobody gives a dumpling because of the mythology that D&D has created of itself.

jh
I don't go to KFC to get chicken.  I go to get KFC.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> One could make the argument that console games are appealing to a whole different demographic than roleplaying games. Basically, WoW handles the core of what D&D is about while being easier to pick up and play as far as the vast majority of gamers are concerned.




Actually, you can't really say the first sentence.  A large portion of the people I know who play WoW (myself included) havedone varying amounts of RPing in their life.  Plenty of people out thehre who never picked up a D&D or RIFTS book are playing WoW yes, but it's appealing to those of us who play D&D as well.  It helped my fiancee and I keep the RPing itch down during this last year or so w/o a tabletop group.  Esp once my guild started using voicechat.  Feels more like a bunch of friends sitting around the table adventuring together.  The DM doesn't talk much tho and has a billion quests already planned out for us to pick up at will.  Or we can work on exploration or fighting other players or crafting nifty stuff.

WoW is dominating all the other MMOs b/c of ease of play, something Blizz is really darn good at.  A lot of the D&Disms are still found in WoW and people are fine with them, maybe even enjoy them.  The second sentence I can go along with no worries   WoW is easier than getting people together, explaining rules, having dices, making sure people remembered characters, etc etc.  Instead bring your computers over and we'll have a LAN party and go thru Scarlet Monastery! heh.

All that said, I can't wait till I get Ptolus in August and maybe find myself a gaming group again one of these days *sigh*


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 23, 2006)

Vanye said:
			
		

> Yes, but that's because it required 2000xp for a fighter to hit second level, and 2500 for a wizard/mage.
> 
> It took a rogue only 1250, and a cleric 1500.
> 
> Levelling slowly, however, once you hit 10th level, was very true.   When it took 100,000+xp to level up, and you were getting 2-3k experince per encounter, it made a difference.




We liked to start people at 5th level mage XP.  Mage was the standard value we used.  It meant some classes would be higher (8th thief I believe) but we had better ranged options 



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> "It's focus on combat means that its easy to pick up and play and new players won't feel so silly about it. Compare the amount of entry through D&D to WoD, for example. I think part of the reason for that is that most people aren't as interested in improvisational theater as they are about seeing their enemies driven before them."




Actually, WoD is no more theatrical than D&D if you run a heavy roleplaying group.  The whole getting up, running around doing rock paper scissors is just the LARP version.  Tabletop runs a lot like D&D only it was usually a smoother event when combat came up, least with my old WOD group I played in.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 23, 2006)

SSquirell said:
			
		

> Plenty of people out thehre who never picked up a D&D or RIFTS book are playing WoW yes, but it's appealing to those of us who play D&D as well.




And you would be part of a tiny minority, rather than the "vast majority" of gamers I mentioned in my post. People who want their entertainment from videogames aren't going to start getting it from tabletop RPGs. It's delusional to think so. Yes, some of them will play both. But to think that WoW will somehow pull people into D&D is, well, absurd.



			
				diaglo said:
			
		

> do you know the background of the cleric or the druid?
> 
> the cleric just like the fighting man and the magic user were the only classes available in OD&D. clerics got some advantages from both the other classes and disadvantages of their own. they filled a unique niche. no spells at level 1. no edged weapons. ability to wear good armor. use of more magic items than fighting men less than magic users.
> 
> ...




So you're saying that in OD&D, the cleric was more than just a mobile aid station? Okay, I'll buy that. My memories of the white box are sketchy, since I only played a few games with a friend's copy. By the time of AD&D, that seemed to be one of their primary roles.

It seems to me that D&D needs to revisit itself from time to time. And it needs to do it with fresh eyes for what it's providing. The developers shouldn't just continually refine the game for people already playing it. Sure, keep your core audience happy.

So, diaglo, I'm curious, why do you still play OD&D? Why not AD&D, Rules Cyclopedia D&D, AD&D 2nd Edition, or even some flavor of Third Edition? Why the original game still? If there's a response more detailed than "it's better," I'd be interested to hear why you think it's better.

I can't guarantee I'd agree, but I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. I think it might be relevant to this discussion, but if others disagree, we can take it elsewhere.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 23, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Again, why should D&D be held to the goal of modeling a specific fantasy novel? Why is D&D not allowed to break it's own ground?




Umm...did I mention a specific fantasy novel? I guess I did use the Lord of the Rings as an example of the literature that got ME interested in fantasy gaming...

Why can't D&D break its own ground? Because people don't usually decide to try out playing D&D because of an experience playing D&D. They may decide to take it up as a hobby because of that, but they're not going to "try it" based on "trying it." They're going to try it because something about it appeals to something they're interested in.

Breaking new ground is fine...for existing players. But that's the point. The game seems to be, in my opinion, primarily targeting its existing market. It's about making D&D for D&D players, not D&D for everyone else. If the game's development even recognizes an "everyone else," they usually start shooting at the computer gaming crowd. Which I've said above I believe is flawed logic because you're talking about different kinds of entertainment.

I love D&D. My reaction to most computer games is..."Meh." I know a few people who play both. Most of them are people who already played tabletop RPGs and took up computer games as well. They aren't (usually) people who played computer games and decided to take up tabletop RPGs. And I know LOTS of people who play computer games and have NO interest in taking up D&D.

But that's a side point. The core point is that I think D&D (especially) is mostly marketing itself at existing D&D players. It's designed by D&D players, for D&D players. It is not, in my opinion, designed to capture the larger audience of people who don't yet play the game, but might be willing to try it. Like, oh, 95% of the women who have the same interests (D&D excepted) as geeks like us.


----------



## hong (Jun 23, 2006)

I find it interesting that all these complaining threads usually follow the same pattern:

"D&D only does D&D well! It doesn't do generic fantasy!" (implied subtext: emulating generic fantasy is desirable)

"Actually, these days generic fantasy is MMORPGs."

"Well, in that case it shouldn't try to ape generic fantasy!"


----------



## Hussar (Jun 23, 2006)

> Why can't D&D break its own ground? Because people don't usually decide to try out playing D&D because of an experience playing D&D. They may decide to take it up as a hobby because of that, but they're not going to "try it" based on "trying it." They're going to try it because something about it appeals to something they're interested in.




I believe that you are mistaken here.  Many people who come to the game are coming to it because they are being introduced by an existing player, or because they happen to go to a store which stocks DnD products.  Perhaps they do DDM or Magic at the local FLGS and pick up DnD.

The idea that someone will read Book X and suddenly get interested in DnD is about as likely as someone playing WOW and getting interested in DnD.  

The gateway to DND is not DND.  It is also not fantasy lit.  THe best gateway to DnD are DnD like games, like DDM or Magic.  That gives you the bones of the game - combat mechanics, rules features, adjudication  - and then DND fills up the rest.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The gateway to DND is not DND.  It is also not fantasy lit.  THe best gateway to DnD are DnD like games, like DDM or Magic.  That gives you the bones of the game - combat mechanics, rules features, adjudication  - and then DND fills up the rest.



I know that a majority of the recent players I got into D&D came from my _Mage Knight_ players, in fact.  The second biggest group is lapsed D&D players who were looking to get back into the game.

I personally didn't get into the game because of an interest in fantasy.  Sure, I liked it and read it.  I was more into comic books, however (and it would be a few years before a superhero RPG I found playable was released).  

I got into D&D because I was looking for an open-ended game.  Board games were too limiting for me.  Why can't I try to run for office in Atlantic City so I can decrease these huge tax bills?


----------



## Psion (Jun 23, 2006)

> Breaking new ground is fine...for existing players. But that's the point. The game seems to be, in my opinion, primarily targeting its existing market. It's about making D&D for D&D players, not D&D for everyone else.




I think this is true, but I think it has nothing to do with emulating novels. D&D is fantasy, and most fantasy fans should recognize some common tropes without having to have it be a simulationist experience.

D&D could choose to emulate a specific subset of fantasy novels, and to a certain extent it does. But to do so to a large degree forces you into making design decisions that can compromise it's playability as a game.

But really, D&D springs from classic fantasy that many readers are familiar with. The races, quest-style, and certain aspects of creatures and mythology are strongly inspired by Lord of the Rings; many adventures stylings are also drawn from Leiber. Many character types are drawn from European history and Arthurian myth. Magic is strongly inspired by vance. These are not ill-recognized authors or books.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So you're saying that in OD&D, the cleric was more than just a mobile aid station? Okay, I'll buy that. My memories of the white box are sketchy, since I only played a few games with a friend's copy. By the time of AD&D, that seemed to be one of their primary roles.




yeah, what the cleric did as its main component to the game was introduce religion and alignment.

which as *JoeBlank* points out can be removed with little difficulty.

just as the thief is not a necessary class and wasn't in the OD&D booklets.









> So, diaglo, I'm curious, why do you still play OD&D? Why not AD&D, Rules Cyclopedia D&D, AD&D 2nd Edition, or even some flavor of Third Edition? Why the original game still? If there's a response more detailed than "it's better," I'd be interested to hear why you think it's better.
> 
> I can't guarantee I'd agree, but I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. I think it might be relevant to this discussion, but if others disagree, we can take it elsewhere.




interestingly, i have been able to get some of this out recently  here  without going into a why this is better than that edition war.

the biggest difference for me has always been the power creep added by the later editions. each one upping the previous. Supplement I Greyhawk started the trend.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The cleric and druid are D&Disms. Why is "druid" a separate character class from "wizard?" Why does the druid's "wildshape" ability need to be a protected niche? The game has become more about preserving itself than modelling fantasy for its audience.



This is an interesting POV but above all, D&D is a *game*. We need to be careful making judgements about design elements that are there for purely that reason, and no other.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Actually, I think Iron Heroes meshes with Monte's style. When I think of Monte, I think of high fantasy, amazing earth shattering events, and riding moons from orbit as they come crashing down onto the planet. Big Things. And Iron Heroes, while low in magic, keeps the Big Things genre alive and well within its pages.




In truth, I've never actually even looked at Iron Heros, aside from the blurbs on store sites... My point was simply that when it came out, there was a lot of talk on just about all d&d message boards about how to do a "low magic" setting..


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I would also throw in the word "rapidly" before "every-increasing."
> 
> If by "low-magic," you mean no magic shops, characters defined by their personal abilities rather than their 30 piece magical accessory set, and worlds where the spell effects of low-level D&D spells aren't commonplace, then yeah, I guess maybe I do mean low-magic.
> 
> I guess if that's what people want out of D&D, it's not my game anymore. However, I am just asking. Am I that much in the minority?




I know exactly what you mean.

In pre-3e D&D, one advanced levels 1-5 fairly rapidly, and then advancement slowed down.  In 3.X D&D, advancement should continue at the same pace forever.  As a result, in pre-3e D&D, characters lvl 6+ became exponentially more rare as level increased, but in 3.X one could reasonably assume to encounter 20th lvl + NPCs on a fairly regular basis.  In pre-3e D&D, problems and monster-infested lairs existed because there were few characters out there who could take care of them...PCs were exceptional.  In 3.X, one wonders why these things were not sorted out long ago.

Talk about magic items and spells....In every edition of D&D, there has been a lot of magic lying around, but in pre-3e D&D, the assumption was that the PCs would only recover a fraction of what was available to be found.  Because character levels didn't rise like rockets, there was no inherent balance issues caused by playing a low-magic game.  Now, mind you, in 3.X, you can play a low-magic game by using lower CR monsters, which will have the added benefit of slowing down level progression, so this isn't as hardwired as it seems at first blush.  Yet, the XP value of any creature is based upon the assumption of a fairly rigorous arsenal.

Pre-3e D&D characters carry torches...they can blow out, get dropped, cause pockets of flammable gas to explode, and are generally messy.  3.X characters carry sunrods.  There is no downside to them.  And yet, again, it is easy to remove sunrods from the equipment lists.

The d20 system is a fairly robust engine.  There are some who claim that it is "well balanced" -- but by "well balanced" they mean anything that tips it will make it fall over.  It is this assumption, more than anything in the core rules, that ought to be challenged, IMHO.  The RAW are easily modified into a low-magic game:

(1)  Give less XP.  I recommend 1/2 of what is suggested per RAW.

(2)  Give less wealth and magic in treasure hoards.

(3)  Use lower CR monsters to reflect the change in PC abilities.  This has the added benefit of further slowing level progression.

(4)  Don't include magic shops in your campaign.

That's it.  No other changes are needed.  The game doesn't tip over, and everything works.  Even if the PCs begin with sunrods and scrolls in their starting equipment, game play will winnow these out, and they will begin to seem more like precious commodities, to be saved for when needed rather than wasted.

RC


----------



## Umbran (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> They may decide to take it up as a hobby because of that, but they're not going to "try it" based on "trying it." They're going to try it because something about it appeals to something they're interested in.




I strongly suspect that they're going to try it because someone they know is interested.  



> Breaking new ground is fine...for existing players. But that's the point. The game seems to be, in my opinion, primarily targeting its existing market.




To do anything else would be a disaster, from a business standpoint.  Marketing to new people is, for a company of WotC's size, expensive, difficult, and high risk.  It would not be enough to make a game for these people - they have to hear about and try the game.  The existing gamers were (and still are) the best and most economical marketing tool for RPGs.  So, you have to get them on board, and keep them there.  

That being said, I think the "D&Disms" arguement is vastly overstated - most of the D&Disms are _in addition to_ the standard fantasy tropes, rather than instead of them.  The player can still do Robin Hood, King Arthur, and so on.

But, let us say that you build a game so flexible, it can handle all sorts of fantasy literature (I think that's a pipe dream, but let's suppose).  Being able to model "the literature" is not going to help unless the new gamer finds a group of people who like _the same_ "the literature".  There are a great many sub-genres out there, you know.  

From what I recall, the hottest-selling fantasy literature out there is urban fantasy - Laurell K. Hamilton is currently #6 on Amazon.  Both Dragons and Dungeons are rather absent from the genre, so the brand is pretty useless to reach these fans.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2006)

JoeBlank said:
			
		

> It recently hit me that I disagree with the idea that wizards can not cast healing spells.
> 
> I play D&D/C&C with my sons, ranging from age 4 to 8. At this point, I do not want to confuse them with the idea of mythical gods and the worship of these gods. So I think I am just doing away with the cleric class in our game. I'll let wizards and sorcerers pick from any spell list.
> 
> My kids don't have any idea how to min/max yet, and even if they did, balance be damned.




Interesting...

In the campaign I'm running, there's only one God. (That the players know of) There are druids, but the "new" religion from the southern Empire has been pushing its way into the Kingdom. The peasents and commoners tend to still put more stock in the "old ways" of the Druids, but pay due respect to this new idea favored by the nobility.

I wanted to do something a bit different then the seemingly common pantheon of gods approach. 

there are still areas in the campaign world that revere other gods or pantheons, the players just haven't gotten there...


----------



## The_Gneech (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> But basically, I'm looking at a huge surge in the popularity of fantasy and thinking the following:
> 
> "Harry Potter books are hugely successful. It's hard to imagine that of all those millions of HP reading kids, more of them don't become D&D players. I wonder why that is..."
> 
> ...




Keep in mind that to somebody who's real into fantasy, _HP_ and _D&D_ are "very different." But to somebody outside of the fantasy fandom, they're exactly the same. *Exactly.* The average suburban mom thinks of them both as being "that weird fantasy stuff with wizards and dragons and junk like that."

What keeps the _HP_ fans who aren't fantasy fans generally from _D&D_ is that _D&D_ is not a "_Harry Potter_ licensed product" (and never will be, if the rumors I've heard are true). That's why product licenses such as _Star Trek_ and _Lord of the Rings_ are such a big deal to game companies -- they will appeal to people who aren't gamers already, thus bringing in new customers as long as the license is healthy.

Once the license dies, a lot of them will not be gamers any more.

-The Gneech


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> What keeps the _HP_ fans who aren't fantasy fans generally from _D&D_ is that _D&D_ is not a "_Harry Potter_ licensed product" (and never will be, if the rumors I've heard are true).





I like hearing quotes like this... I usually mentally tack on "at the moment" to the "never will be" statements. 

I'm not discounting what you're saying at all, but never will be in the business sense seems to be until current profit levels drop, or new management takes over and wants to make things "better..."


----------



## satori01 (Jun 23, 2006)

Couldnt you reverse the question and ask "Why Literature does not cleave closer to D&D?".  The funny answer is of course you see that often times it is D&D that influences other genres.  D&D has been a force in fantasy for 30 years.  Parties, classes, levels, roles have been a stapple in D&D, are a stapple in computer games, are a stapple in much literature, and are a stapple in movies.  As a child I remember reading a book called the Deeds of Paksanarion, or some such.  Anyway the female lead, was on her way to becoming a Paladin.
Paladins in this book were clearly inspired by D&D Paladins, and this book was not a D&D published book, but an independent work of fiction.  The tropes cut both ways.

Games will never exactly model fiction.  Games need to have some degree of balance, games are also interactive, the players have to have some control over what they do.  Rand al Thor does not have to be balanced relative to the rest of his group,  Fritz Leiber (a huge supporter and influence on early D&D), can simply write in that the Grey Mouser had some magical training from a hedge wizard, and Deus Ex Machina like kill an experience Black Wizard, as long as the writting is good you are willing to buy it.

Fairness does not apply to books, it does apply to games.  People for the most part will not play games they think are unfair.

Funny thing is, much of what you want can be done already.  Think the old 1e/2e multiclassing rules better represent peoples talents...use the gestault rules.

Want a Wizard that can cast all types of spells, House rule that a Wizard can.  AE has the Magister,  which is basically just that, and it works fine.

Think the grapple rules are to complex, make it a straight strength check.  The rules of the game are yours to play with.
Things like classes, levels, feats, and archetype roles have proven through sales to be probably the most popular model.  I would say this is further confirmed when you look at the most succesful MMRPGs.  World of Warcraft with its more standard D&D system is much more popular, and fun, than Star Wars Galaxies that was a "classless" system.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 23, 2006)

A'koss said:
			
		

> For me, and I'm willing to bet for more than a few of you, that a lot of the perceived problems with D&D stem from the fact that it doesn't do a good job at mirroring the kind of fantasy (movies, literature) that we grew up with.
> 
> D&D only reflects itself. Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into _playing_ the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).
> 
> ...




I mostly agree with this, although mirroring what others have said earlier, i don't think it's so hard to tweak the D&D game so that you CAN emulate the movies and stories that got you playing. I hate HL play for all the complexities and rampant power. I think the game really, really doesn't need characters to level higher than 12th. So, with this in mind, a DM just needs to mete out XP in such a way to accomodate that level arc. 

I preordered the Ptlous book btw, not so much that i was enthralled by "magic shops on every corner" ( i don't like that actually) but b/c i was so impressed with Arcana Evolved, and the physical beauty of the Ptolus book. It's a one-of-a-kind tome for gamers. 

And again, if i ever run Ptolus, as DM i will control the flow of magic items at exactly the rate i want the PC's to acquire them, which is slower than standard. And i'm sure Monte would be fine with that.


----------



## Belen (Jun 23, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> The third edition experience progression is linear, rather than curved (as it had been before). These days, it ought to take just about as long to go from first to second level as it does from 18th to 19th, and that certainly was not the case in earlier editions.




Now, if only the power scale was linear, then we would not have a problem.  In previous editions, we had a slow level advancement and a exponential power growth.  Now we have faster advancement and we still have that exponential growth.

Maybe this is what is affecting people.  They just have no time to adjust to the power.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Now, if only the power scale was linear, then we would not have a problem.  In previous editions, we had a slow level advancement and a exponential power growth.  Now we have faster advancement and we still have that exponential growth.
> 
> Maybe this is what is affecting people.  They just have no time to adjust to the power.




You may well be correct.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 23, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The RAW are easily modified into a low-magic game:
> 
> (1)  Give less XP.  I recommend 1/2 of what is suggested per RAW.
> 
> ...



I also took the liberty of changing the crafting rules to make producing magic items more arduous, but otherwise that's pretty much how I handled my three-point-oh game.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 23, 2006)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Now, if only the power scale was linear, then we would not have a problem.  In previous editions, we had a slow level advancement and a exponential power growth.  Now we have faster advancement and we still have that exponential growth.
> 
> Maybe this is what is affecting people.  They just have no time to adjust to the power.




i think you are correct.

edit: the game design is basically expecting the learning curve to be complete by mid levels. but in fact, since new things are still being added at even Epic levels it makes it difficult for  referee and players alike.

the referees have trouble scaling encounters based on the new skills/powers/feats/whatever. and the players have trouble dealing with the adjustment of tactics based on their new powers/items/whatever.

it isn't until many trial and error attempts before the group finally figures things out for them. some of the groups may give up by then. and end up playing something else like Rifts or Traveller or Fudge or ...


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 23, 2006)

Another thing, thinking back to the comments about uneven class progression and the perception of 3e power creep.

Wizards took so much more XP to gain levels than the other classes (especially at high levels), that high level wizards were relatively rare PCs compared with fighters and thieves.  

Because multiclassing required XP to be split over all classes, you didn't see people just suddenly choosing to add a few levels of [insert class here] just to gain some kind of bonus or ability.  Multiclassing in earlier editions was a pain.  The result was that most people played a character that had one class, and one class only for the life of the character.  

Not saying the changes are good or bad, but are likely major factors in the perception of how different things used to be.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, let me throw out one example of an almost strictly D&D conceit that's been mentioned a few times throughout this thread.
> 
> [Clerics, clerics and more clerics]
> 
> Some of these things are desired, of course, but certainly not all of them.




This whole post sounds like cynical speculation to me.


----------



## Dracorat (Jun 23, 2006)

And for the record, every person I have gotten introduced in to my games has come with one basic understanding...

"In D&D I can do anything"

I don't often (in fact cannot recall a single instance of) hear the statement "I want to play Aragorn".


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 23, 2006)

I like "D&Dish" D&D.  Yeah, long complex plots can be fun, but in the game I'm running I feel I was a bit too ambitious with my plans, so I've scaled back and turned that "big long campaign against a hidden enemy" into a chapter instead of a book, so to speak, and have made more site-based adventures.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 23, 2006)

happyelf said:
			
		

> The whole super-fantasy dungeon-crawl mindset, plus the hilarious economy issues, are an overly common feature of the game. I think a better approach would be to see PC's as exceptional, as the Ebberon setting does- but this kind of thinking should be the baseline, not a campaign-specific exception.



From the snippets I've read, this sounds like the premise of _Exalted_.







			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> The very nature of an RPG being a *group activity* usually precludes having campaigns that feel like the classic novels.  As RPGs developed, players realized this and many decided they prefered the worlds to feel like the game they were playing, rather than supposed worlds simulated, but not feeling the same because of the needed changes to make a fun game.  *That's how the current "make the game world fit the game" trend started.*



(Emphasis added by this poster.)

This is really interesting. I believe it extends beyond just _D&D_, which to my mind is a fantasy subgenre all its own, to much of the fantasy genre as a whole: building a society from the floor up with magic as a fundamental technology, rather than tacking it on like a pink flamingo on the lawn. This approach to _D&D_ settings reflects a larger trend in fantasy, one shaped in no small part by the thirty-plus year influence of the game and gamers on the genre.

Another trend in fantasy that's made its way into _Dungeons and Dragons_ is a tendency for heroes to become more like superheroes in terms of their abilities. A 12th level fighter in 1e _AD&D_ was a powerful dude, far better than most of the opponents he was likely to face, usually packing a potent magic weapon and magic armor, a couple of potions in a pouch and maybe a magic ring or amulet or other beneficial doo-dad - the same 12th level fighter in 3e could be wielding a fire giant's Huge magical _flaming keen_ axe (thanks, Monkey Grip!) or shooting a slew of arrows at a target with one pull of the bow (thanks, Manyshot!) and is, if keeping to the appropriate wealth-by-level guidelines, decked out with an impressive array of magic items fitted into various 'slots,' and facing an collection of critters and baddies (or goodies, if you're into that sort of game) specifically designed to challenge him at that level. (Before anyone gets into a white lather, I'm not suggesting that one is better than the other, merely that the character examples are different in terms of what they can and can't do and how the game was structured to chellenge them.)

Now a magitech (defined here not as "steampunk" or the like, but rather magic as a fundamental force in the universe integrated into the lives of the members of society) and superheroes game-world and gaming experience doesn't appeal to everyone, so for these players there is a fundamental disconnect that occurs when the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game comes to reflect this larger trend.

It's possible to run a _D&D_ game without those conceits, but it does take some tweaking the system to get to that point. Me, I choose to play different systems instead, systems that hit my sweet spot out of the box rather than requiring retconning of features that I don't care for. I've been re-reading _The Fantasy Trip_ after many, many years, and remembering why I thought it was such a cool system in the first place. It is much closer to my sweet spot as a gamer than _D&D_ ever was, and years of refining my own gaming tastes make it even more appealing now than it was in the early Eighties when I was introduced to it. Its genre conceits and its mechanics reflect the sort of fantasy games I like to run better than those of _D&D_, and without requiring patches over sections of the system that don't fit my concept of the setting or the characters' place in it.

So to answer the OP, no, you're not alone, and yes, _D&D_ is too "D&Dish" for my tastes.


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 23, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Interesting...
> 
> In the campaign I'm running, there's only one God. (That the players know of) There are druids, but the "new" religion from the southern Empire has been pushing its way into the Kingdom. The peasents and commoners tend to still put more stock in the "old ways" of the Druids, but pay due respect to this new idea favored by the nobility.
> 
> ...




If and when my kids move into the realm of religion in our game, we may start with just one god. But for now I am avoiding the subject all together. Take for instance the Harry Potter books. Plenty of magic and monsters, injury, death and healing, but no talk of religion. That is what I am aiming for.

For now, they just want to kill things and take their stuff.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 23, 2006)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> <Snip my comments about Clerics>
> This whole post sounds like cynical speculation to me.




Hmm...Nah. Although I can't deny that I wonder what the future of the cleric class is. I'd have to be blind not to notice that several of the perceived "balance" issues of late (which have even been mentioned by WotC's designers and developers) have been around clerics. Well, them and the polymorph spell.

Clerics, today, are almost a deus ex machina for character healing. A particular group could do without its holy-man, but, in the Core Rules defaults, it CAN'T do without magical healing. So...scrap it. Get rid of it. Let's cut down on the amount of spellcasting. One thing that tweaked me in _Unearthed Arcana_ was the "Spellcaster" (Generic Class) having to choose to be a "divine" or "arcane" caster. If he chose arcane, his spells were arcane spells, chosen from the entire PHB list, but he had to risk arcane spell failure if he wore armor. If he was divine, he could wear armor without risk of spell failure. The downside was...umm...

Now forgive me, but that's just WHACKED! There's no functional difference between the caster (I repeat, either type can choose ANY spell). But if he's "divine," he can wear armor and if he's "arcane," he can't? Talk about enforcing a D&Dism for no reason.

The Design & Development team has made comments about how people have to be encouraged (that is, bribed) to play clerics. The obvious fix is to change the game so that the cleric isn't necessary.

And the recent comments that polymorph treads on the druid's "turf" bothers me because one of the oldest tropes of fantasy is shapeshifting into other forms. So now our spellcasters can't do it as well because we've got a nature-boy class whose "schtick" that is?

That's just dumb. Fix polymorph by making it a scalable spell. Heck, fix all the spells so that they're scalable. It would simplify the spell lists and several of the balance issues. The other fix I'd almost bet on in a future edition of the game is the sorcerer getting the heave-ho.

Now that's cynical speculation.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 23, 2006)

I had to interject here on one comment that I should just let go, but I won't...



> shooting a slew of arrows at a target with one pull of the bow (thanks, Manyshot!)




*LAUGH* I've done this. In the real world. Yes, it was only two arrows. This is classic trick archery stuff. I realize Hawkeye and Green Arrow do this...but I don't have any problem with a medium-high level D&D character being as competent and powerful as what I would call the "human" characters from superhero comics. Captain America, Hawkeye, Batman, Green Arrow - those are GREAT characters to emulate at the high end of the D&D power scale.

Balancing that with magic-using classes has always been difficult. And probably always will be.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 23, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Actually, WoD is no more theatrical than D&D if you run a heavy roleplaying group.  The whole getting up, running around doing rock paper scissors is just the LARP version.  Tabletop runs a lot like D&D only it was usually a smoother event when combat came up, least with my old WOD group I played in.




Heh, I've known WoD games that were more hack and slash than a standard D&D game. But, in this case I'm more referencing the steriotypical WoD posterchild, which are fairly prevalant in my experience. Think WoD LARPers. (I had a boss that was one once, interesting times.) 


Beyond that, lots of talk about clerics now! That's a good example of a D&Dism, though, that doesn't draw from classic literature. One of the interesting things about the D&D cleric, though, is that many non-D&D players will recognise this newly formed archetype even if they have no idea where it came from!

D&D has had a huge influence outside of itself, and I think that to ignore that would actually harm the game. Iron Heroes (to bring it up again) got rid of the need of a cleric by introducing a reserve hp mechanic. So, we know that the cleric isn't necessary as a meta-construct for the game to run properly. However, at this point, the cleric is so integral to the game that I don't think one can successfully remove it, even if it isn't necessary from a mechanics viewpoint. To remove the cleric archetype from the game that spawned it would be a huge mistake.

I think that applies to a lot of other D&Disms. I wouldn't call them barriers to entry.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Beyond that, lots of talk about clerics now! That's a good example of a D&Dism, though, that doesn't draw from classic literature. One of the interesting things about the D&D cleric, though, is that many non-D&D players will recognise this newly formed archetype even if they have no idea where it came from!




The D&D cleric springs directly from the Middle Ages, including the original prohibition against using edged weapons (spilling blood).  Most of the original D&D cleric spells (part water, create food & drink, healing, etc.) are Biblical.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 23, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The D&D cleric springs directly from the Middle Ages, including the original prohibition against using edged weapons (spilling blood).  Most of the original D&D cleric spells (part water, create food & drink, healing, etc.) are Biblical.




Point.

Replace with druid, and my validity returns!  (Real druids were not like D&D druids.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 23, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Point.
> 
> Replace with druid, and my validity returns!  (Real druids were not like D&D druids.)




No, but they are based on a conception of real druids, especially as one descends back edition to edition.  I'm not sure 3.X _fighters_ are directly linked to their archetypal namesakes!


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 23, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> *LAUGH* I've done this. In the real world. Yes, it was only two arrows.



So has most anyone who's picked up a bow at some point in their lives.

However, I don't personally know of any bowhunters, to use a real world example of people who use arrows to kill things, who shoot four or five or six arrows from their bows at once while pursuing game.







			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> This is classic *trick archery stuff*.



(Emphasis added by this poster.)

Archery tricks are one thing - using an arrow to kill something is different, or so I'm told.







			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I realize Hawkeye and Green Arrow do this...but I don't have any problem with a medium-high level D&D character being as competent and powerful as what I would call the "human" characters from superhero comics. Captain America, Hawkeye, Batman, Green Arrow - those are GREAT characters to emulate at the high end of the D&D power scale.



If you like superheroes in your fantasy RPG, more power to you. Manyshot, Monkey Grip, and some others fracture my suspension of disbelief.

We all set the bar somewhere - I would say you're a bit further up the wahoo-ladder than I am.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 23, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No, but they are based on a conception of real druids, especially as one descends back edition to edition.  I'm not sure 3.X _fighters_ are directly linked to their archetypal namesakes!




The Fighting Man? Well, even if they're different, they're still based off of the basic Man-at-Arms guy. You can look at characters from literature or movies or whatnot and say "He's a fighter" pretty well (Inigo Montoya!). I've not done that with druids (except in stuff like WoW).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2006)

Admittedly, I had to rewrite the druid to my liking.  I believe that my version is still kicking about somewhere on the House Rules forum.  The only core 3.5 class I didn't feel a need to rewrite, actually, was the rogue.  Fit the archetype to a T, IMHO.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 24, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> D&D has had a huge influence outside of itself, and I think that to ignore that would actually harm the game. Iron Heroes (to bring it up again) got rid of the need of a cleric by introducing a reserve hp mechanic. So, we know that the cleric isn't necessary as a meta-construct for the game to run properly. However, at this point, the cleric is so integral to the game that I don't think one can successfully remove it, even if it isn't necessary from a mechanics viewpoint. To remove the cleric archetype from the game that spawned it would be a huge mistake.
> 
> I think that applies to a lot of other D&Disms. I wouldn't call them barriers to entry.




I would.  Whole heartedly.  Slay the sacred cows.  Clerics are ridiculous and no one wants to be a walking Pez dispenser of health.  Hence they get bribed w/a more powerful class.  Screw that.  Ditch the Arcana/Divine divide (ala AE Thanks Monte!!) and voila.  No need for a cleric anymore.  

While you're at it, Paladins should be a Prestige Class, Bards are finally relatively decent in 3.5 (altho they really only shine in an urban setting I've seen), you can be Barbaric and anotehr class so just rename them, etc etc.  I know I can ratle on about this one much more.  So I will heh.  Alignment, which a decent "generally speaking" sense of teh word has been made into a straitjacket.  Ditch it.  If you want Paladins sensing something, have them sense lies.  Vast disturbances in the Force, whatever.

At this point they're a D&Dism.  Monte has said that they debated going farther with the sacred cows, but were afraid of a revolution by the players.  One thing I saw him mention here on ENWorld was a plan late in development to make 20 levels of spells for a better grading of spell power.  Was too late when someone thought of it tho.  That is already found in some systems like RIFTS, but still, not D&D.

Some people will say I should just play a different game, and I suppose I am.  I'm playing AE...well mostly in my head.  No tabletop group right now.  But if I'm wanting a good fantasy game, that is what speaks to me more than D&D right now.


Also, when I got started into D&D it was b/c a gifted/talented teacher told me I might like the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.  I loved them and she said she hosted a D&D group on Fridays after school and I might find it neat.  19 years later here I am, still gaming.  Few people just randomly run into D&D and buy it.  Most people still have the same reaction from the 80s crap of "Isn't this for satanists or something?  People going outta the ir heads killing themselves or their friends?".  I still dispel this myth.

I've known people who played computer games like WoW decide they liked this and maybe want something a bit less fed to them.  Which gets them introduced (yet again) by friends to tabletop games.  I've known far more who enjoy tabletop but play SWG or WoW or City of Heroes/Villains, etc.  It fills a niche in their life that maybe their tabletop gaming didn't, or they lack a group right now or it's just fun and maybe their friends told them it was great.  WoW is so hug, in large part, b/c of insanely good word of mouth to go with a great product.

D&D could be that big (and really, I know gaming is a niche but 6 million worlkdwide sounds reasonable for D&D) and if they can figure out what the annoyances or other reaons people don't play it is, they'll get an even wider audience in.

Oh  and one last thing to dispute.  There is talk that they were only trying to get old D&D players back and keep the new ones.  Then why would they have made 3E so much easier to teach? "Every main roll is on a d20.  Higher is always better.  (Stat - 10)/2 and round down for your stat bonuses.  Easy huh?"


----------



## Thomas Percy (Jun 24, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> I think your point is that first edition provided a ruleset to emulate quasi-historical medieval fantasy whereas third edition provides a set of campaign assumptions that are based on the rules. Quasi-historical fantasy seems increasingly less important these days, with Eberron being perhaps the best example.



I see no antinomy among quasi-historical medieval fantasy feel and 3e rules' feel. 
Parish-priest spellcaster is imho in the style of medieval legends and acceptable for medieval mentality. 
WallMart full with _+1 swords_ is imho not in medieval style and *not in the feel of 3e too!* 
It's *anachronism*, *fruit of the DM's laziness* and *loan from crpg*, but it's not a feel of 3e (you don't find in DMG that _+1 swords_ are available in WallMarts).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 24, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I would.  Whole heartedly.  Slay the sacred cows.




While the sacred cows might annoy you personally, I doubt clerics make it harder for new players to learn the game or that new players think its bad to have a cleric. The healing class is a staple of modern fantasy gaming, from EQ to Final Fantasy, which is where most of the new people playing D&D are coming from nowadays most likely. Saying you don't like it is one thing. Saying it is hurting the hobby is quite another thing entirely and something I can't agree with. People do grok the healing classes.


----------



## Kaffis (Jun 24, 2006)

Andor said:
			
		

> I've yet to play in a game that _didn't_ have such a shop in it. In every game we get into town and the players just look at their cash, page through the DMG and hand the GM a list of what they want, and almost always get rubber stamped. Forget a limited selection. Also forget haggleing or any possibility that the shop keeper or townspeople might possibly cut you some slack just because you saved them, their livestock, and their immortal souls from horror and torment.




Indeed. Actually, I take that back. Back in college, the game I played at the FLGS, run by one of the proprietors, had no such shop. Instead, he'd hand out most of the magic items (and certainly the best ones around in the game) via the powerful mage that we frequently did odd jobs for as quest rewards. And they were typically powerful, but flawed or marked in some way because the mage, while powerful, was more than a little eccentric. Like the +2 frost longsword the ranger got, which was a nice weapon for the amount of magical items in the setting, but smelled of apples whenever it was unsheathed (which is, of course, more than a little inconvenient on occasion for a ranger), because after the mage made it, he used it to cool his cider stocks while we were away. He was an awesome DM, and, I'm sad to say, really spoiled me in such regards.

Since moving after college, however, I run into the "give me a list of what you can afford by the book, and I'll probably rubber-stamp it" once we get into a town of any size, in just about all the games I play.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 24, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> While the sacred cows might annoy you personally, I doubt clerics make it harder for new players to learn the game or that new players think its bad to have a cleric. The healing class is a staple of modern fantasy gaming, from EQ to Final Fantasy, which is where most of the new people playing D&D are coming from nowadays most likely. Saying you don't like it is one thing. Saying it is hurting the hobby is quite another thing entirely and something I can't agree with. People do grok the healing classes.




I never said Clerics are hurting the hobby.  In 9 out of 10 groups I have been in or read about on trheads here, someone basically has to draw the short straw to play a Cleric.  Every party agrees they need a Cleric but nearly no one wants to be the PEZ dispenser.  Get rid of it and teh arcane/divine split.  We already have Bards as arcane casters doing healing magic, so just blow it all down.


----------



## William Ronald (Jun 25, 2006)

Well, there are some clerics in legend and fantasy literature.  Mind you, there are alternate ways of modeling a cleric than is done in the core rules.  (Monte Cook does have a feat that allows one to be a member of a religious order.)  I personally enjoy playing clerics, but I think that for me it is a chance to role play a character who is devoted to something higher than himself.  I think that this might be an approach to take in a future edition, particularly if the Arcane/Divine Magic divide weakens or vanishes.  

(Perhaps one thing that might help people in roleplaying clerics is to include some information on the deities, myths, and the clergy's role in society.  I am familair about the differences between Zeus and Athena, or Thor and Tyr. However, how much do people know about the clergy and beliefs of St. Cuthbert or Heironeous, or other core rules deities.)


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 25, 2006)

*wonders if threads like these are going to keep on going*

Okay fine then! Orcus rules, Scarred Lands Rocks and this has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Why? Cause this threadcrapping is better than watching people whine and gripe. If you want to whine and gripe, fine. Do it on your own time. Otherwise GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! 

Thank you.


----------



## William Ronald (Jun 25, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *wonders if threads like these are going to keep on going*
> 
> Okay fine then! Orcus rules, Scarred Lands Rocks and this has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Why? Cause this threadcrapping is better than watching people whine and gripe. If you want to whine and gripe, fine. Do it on your own time. Otherwise GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
> 
> Thank you.




Well, as for the cleric bit, I would argue that having a series of organizations and stories about the deities in a setting can help add to roleplaying flavor.  Perhaps one important thing that a DM can add is a few tales of rolemodels for players to base their characters on for a setting.    So, perhaps one way to solve the problem that people might have with certain classes is to have a few good stories in each campaign or in the core rule books.  For example, what is the role of a cleric in an adventuring party and in different societies? How is a rogue more than just a thief?  Just a few random thoughts.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 25, 2006)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> As a player in Monte's Ptolus game and as a keen student of the development of D&D under Wizards of the Coast, I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning.
> 
> The quoted section from the Player's Guide seems to summarize game elements that are hard-wired into the system, and have been from the start. Advancing characters. Magic items. Lots of spells.
> 
> ...




I think he's getting at the "degree" to which these things are part of the game.  Since the advent of 3E, many things about the game have changed significantly from previous editions....the prevalence of magic items, the number of character types with magic abilities, the speed with which characters advance, etc.  It used to be that characters couldn't just go and buy magic items at a shop.  They were rare, and powerful, and now characters are dripping in bling.  In fact, the system has been built in such a way that a DM has to incorporate bling, or risk the game breaking.....even encounters with monsters are calculated according to the characters having X many gp worth of items based on their level, in order to compete.

The reintroduction, and worship of the dungeon.....and many other things.

The game has definitely changed.  When I read the original poster's question, that's what I feel that he's getting at....unless I'm reading my own bias into it.

Banshee


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 25, 2006)

William Ronald said:
			
		

> Well, as for the cleric bit, I would argue that having a series of organizations and stories about the deities in a setting can help add to roleplaying flavor.  Perhaps one important thing that a DM can add is a few tales of rolemodels for players to base their characters on for a setting.    So, perhaps one way to solve the problem that people might have with certain classes is to have a few good stories in each campaign or in the core rule books.  For example, what is the role of a cleric in an adventuring party and in different societies? How is a rogue more than just a thief?  Just a few random thoughts.





Well I can answer that the role of the cleric is to fight off the Titans.  At least that's their hope.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 25, 2006)

I realize I'm coming late to the discussion, but it's interesting that y'all bring up the fact that D&D was morphed to cater to a 1-20 game in a year of constant play. It may or may not be true that campaigns typically last a year or less (probably true), but where did the imperative to "just get through all the levels" come from? That's certainly a huge departure from the gaming style of older editions, and speaks directly to the OP's point. The game designers clearly made the assumption that rushing through all 20 levels was a good goal in and of itself, presumably because it would offer players a range of experiences. Unfortunately, the experiences offered by high-level D&D aren't really all that satisfying.

Pogre cited an interesting survey that said most people found levels 5-8 a sweet spot that they enjoyed playing in. I agree with that, but then I realized that it was based off a nostalgic assumption. Levels 5-8 *used* to be a sweet spot, and while I carried that over into 3e for a while, now I realize it no longer applies. All levels are the same in D&D now, 1-20. An "appropriate" monster will take 20% of my resources whether I'm 2nd level or 18th. Sure, the tools change, but the baseline assumptions never do. Levels 5-8 were special back in the day because you spent more time there, accumulated more stories there, and reached a point where you had some cool abilities and toward the end of that range probably some phat loot (or at least that one character-defining piece of equipment).

Magic, too, has lost that luster. The system itself assumes that your character will have X,Y, and Z items to boost his stats and defenses up to a certain level so you can take on that "appropriate" monster with 20% of your pre-defined resources. It's an incredibly boring exercise. That's why you have the magic shop assumptions, because if you don't let PCs customize their loot, then they're going to be dying left and right because of the game's assumptions. Faster levelling also makes special, personalized magic items obsolete, because you're whisking so fast through levels that almost as soon as you get a cool item, it's no longer strong enough to take on those "appropriate" monsters. So, you have to keep trading up at the local thorpe's magic emporium. 

There *are* assumptions in the d20 system that affect gameplay in significant ways, always have been, always will be. But the forced levelling mechanic and CR/wealth systems have clearly impacted how D&D is supposed to be played, and have blown a lot of what people liked about the game for 25 years out of the water.

Oh, and there are good things too, blah blah...


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 25, 2006)

Like more freelancing gigs eh Will?


----------



## ChristianW (Jun 25, 2006)

_Is everyone on board with the style preferred by the WotC 3e designers?_

I am late to this, but I tought I'd respond to the OP's comments.

When 3.0 was introduced, I read that the game was designed to allow a group of four players to advance their characters to 20th level after a year of playing. This was to be accomplished if a DM followed a careful progression of ELs, encounters per level and guidelines and so on.

This just isn't my style at all. I began playing in 1984 and never once did we state "reaching 20th level" as the goal of a campaign. Sadly, any deviation from that style can lead to problems with gamers who have come to accept rapid level progression as the proper way to play. 

"DM, we should have advanced by now. We just had our 13th encounter for the level and that is the guideline for level progression."

Man, what?


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 25, 2006)

So what...I'm supposed to languish at 1st level forever just because you're not sure you're playing your character correctly?


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 25, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Sure, the tools change, but the baseline assumptions never do.






> The system itself assumes that your character will have X,Y, and Z items to boost his stats and defenses up to a certain level so you can take on that "appropriate" monster with 20% of your pre-defined resources.






> That's why you have the magic shop assumptions, because if you don't let PCs customize their loot, then they're going to be dying left and right because of the game's assumptions.






> There *are* assumptions in the d20 system that affect gameplay in significant ways, always have been, always will be.




I think you've focused somewhat on the key.  There need to be assumptions, and in earlier editions there were less of them, and there were some that were different.  At times there were stated assumptions that were contradictory (witness the "keep magic rare" assumption, and the actual adventures which were far from that).

However, where many people fall down is they assume the core rules "assumptions" are rules.  They aren't.  They are guidelines they are working with.  If you are creating an adventure to publish, you should probably stay within the assumptions.  If you decide to stray, state that you are straying and why, so DMs can adapt your adventure easier.

Plus, there are assumptions people are adding to the rules that aren't there. I keep hearing about the assumption that you will have 13 1/2 encounters of your CR and go up a level.  That's not the assumption.  The assumption is _if_ you have 13 1/2 (or whatever the actual number is) encounters of your CR you will go up a level.  It's not a rule that all encounters must be of your CR.

CR is supposed to be a _tool_ for the DM.  If I have a 4 PC party of 5th level, I know that an encounter with a CR 2 creature should be a cakewalk for the PCs if it comes to combat (as always, barring oddities I might take into account).  I know that an encounter with a CR 8 creature should probably be close to impossible for the PCs to defeat in combat.  Neither means I can't have the PCs have either encounter.

Unfortunately, some people have wrapped their heads so tightly around the assumptions, that they are treating them as rules.  You have the stories of players complaining because the CR of an encounter was too high.  You have stories of players complaining  that they don't have enough wealth for their level.  There is nothing wrong with tweaking these things, as long as you understand how it affects the campign (cutting down the treasure and keeping everything else the same is going to make things incredibly difficult for PCs).


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 25, 2006)

*is just going to say this*

LEVELING ISN"T A BAD THING!


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 25, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *is just going to say this*
> 
> LEVELING ISN"T A BAD THING!




Munchkin.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 25, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, some people have wrapped their heads so tightly around the assumptions, that they are treating them as rules.  You have the stories of players complaining because the CR of an encounter was too high.  You have stories of players complaining  that they don't have enough wealth for their level.  There is nothing wrong with tweaking these things, as long as you understand how it affects the campign (cutting down the treasure and keeping everything else the same is going to make things incredibly difficult for PCs).




The assumptions are tied into the rules, however. Monster design, something I'm focused on rather heavily at the moment, is tied completely into the wealth system. Monsters of CR X must take into account that the PCs *will* have X,Y,Z abilities. So, we're designing monsters using these assumptions, and if DMs disregard those assumptions, then how are they to use the monsters we've designed with those assumptions?

If my module has to include Xgp in treasure, no more, no less, how can anything interesting ever be found? Every room conforms precisely to the wealth by level and wealth be EL system...that's the assumption affecting gameplay. It is and always has been my biggest problem with the d20 system is that these assumptions *do* explicitly affect the way the game is played. In the old days you could have monty haul DMs and parsimonious ones...nowadays everyone's stuck in the same old mold, forced into it by the assumptions of the rules.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 25, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Munchkin.




I'll remember that when you ask me for 10 dollars.   *is kidding*


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 25, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> The assumptions are tied into the rules, however. Monster design, something I'm focused on rather heavily at the moment, is tied completely into the wealth system. Monsters of CR X must take into account that the PCs *will* have X,Y,Z abilities. So, we're designing monsters using these assumptions, and if DMs disregard those assumptions, then how are they to use the monsters we've designed with those assumptions?.




I admit, DMs who change those assumptions have to adapt more than those who follow the assumptions.  I touched on that a bit in my post above.  For example, a DM who is stingy with his magical treasure (compared to the assumed standard), will have to realize that monsters will act higher than their CR.  He'll also have to watch abilities that might make them even tougher (incorporeal creatures are incredibly tough vs. PCs who don't have magic weapons).

Yes, when you are designing adventures you have pretty much two choices.  You can design for the "assumed standard" (which doesn't mean you can't have 2nd level & 9th level encounters in a 5th level adventure), or you can break the standard and design around that.  You'll have to heavily advertise  that you are doing so.

In fact, this is likely good article territory.  I'm not sure I've read a thorough article on the effects of how to adjust your game if you change the assumptions.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 25, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> In fact, this is likely good article territory.  I'm not sure I've read a thorough article on the effects of how to adjust your game if you change the assumptions.




I had to address it in Midnight. You *do* have Midnight, right?   That was a long time ago, though, so I'm not sure how well it was actually addressed, and of course it would have been focused on that setting rather than on core D&D.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 25, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I had to address it in Midnight. You *do* have Midnight, right?   That was a long time ago, though, so I'm not sure how well it was actually addressed, and of course it would have been focused on that setting rather than on core D&D.




Nope, just not my style of gameplay.   Fighting the unwinnable fight (or probably unwinnable fight) isn't something I prefer.  I've avoided Dark Sun, and mostly avoided Ravenloft & Call of Cthulhu for the same reason.

Of course, once you set up the different assumptions in Midnight, didn't DMs have to make an effort to change things if they wanted to change to different assumptions?  (Admittedly, they probably have practice, since they likely adapted things into the setting).


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 25, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Nope, just not my style of gameplay.   Fighting the unwinnable fight (or probably unwinnable fight) isn't something I prefer.  I've avoided Dark Sun, and mostly avoided Ravenloft & Call of Cthulhu for the same reason.
> 
> Of course, once you set up the different assumptions in Midnight, didn't DMs have to make an effort to change things if they wanted to change to different assumptions?  (Admittedly, they probably have practice, since they likely adapted things into the setting).




I was just going all Tony Soprano on you, I didn't expect you'd have it. 

All games do and should have assumptions in their rules that inform gameplay. Midnight is no different, and I think people should just admit that D&D has them too.  It's not bad if you like that style of play, but that begs the question of why it was changed in the first place.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 25, 2006)

Older editions definitely required you to have lots of magic.  Look at how many creatures were unable to be dmaged except by a +1/2/3/4/5 magic weapon.  Loads of them.  Some people hate that 3E clarified some of the previously schizophrenic rules and guidelines of the older systems, but I prefer the clarity.  I like the idea of magic shops, b/c where the hell else are you going to sell this boatload of magic you get?  We always got tons of magic items in older adventures too.  Look thru Keep on the Borderlands sometime.  It's ridiculous.

Settings like Ptolus and Eberron are actually making great use of an old Dragon article that was one of the greatest Sense of Wonder pieces I'd ever read in direct relation to D&D.  It was an article devoted to what happens when you have a magic using society and the changes in society.  I believei t had several of the talked about things like invisible guardsmen, bans on detection, continual light streetlights, teleportation circles for shipping, etc.  I'm sure someone with an old Dragon archive disc set can find it.

Things like that were what always really interested me and I wondered why they didn't do that in the game.  Now they do.  The game has actually finally reached the expectations I had when I was 12.  Interestingly enough, 3.5 has also moved a bit more away from the "must have magic items to damage this creature" thing.  Yes incorporeals still need magic, but the old DRs are switched to item material now.  I haven't looked thru many 3.5 MMs so I'm not sure how many/if any of the "Must have a +1/2/3/4/5" monsters are left.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Older editions definitely required you to have lots of magic.  Look at how many creatures were unable to be dmaged except by a +1/2/3/4/5 magic weapon.  Loads of them.



Loads of them?

I'm not sure which "older editions" you're referencing, but aside from most demons, devils, and undead and the four basic elementals, there are only a handful in the 1e _MM_ - the peryton, the intellect devourer, and the aerial servant come to mind. Most of the monsters in that book can be harmed with normal weapons, and a few with either silver, iron, or _blessed_ weapons in lieu of enchanted ones.

Of course, a dungeon master isn't obligated to use monsters that can only be hit by magic weapons in any edition.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 25, 2006)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> The assumptions are tied into the rules, however. Monster design, something I'm focused on rather heavily at the moment, is tied completely into the wealth system. Monsters of CR X must take into account that the PCs *will* have X,Y,Z abilities. So, we're designing monsters using these assumptions, and if DMs disregard those assumptions, then how are they to use the monsters we've designed with those assumptions?
> 
> If my module has to include Xgp in treasure, no more, no less, how can anything interesting ever be found? Every room conforms precisely to the wealth by level and wealth be EL system...that's the assumption affecting gameplay. It is and always has been my biggest problem with the d20 system is that these assumptions *do* explicitly affect the way the game is played. In the old days you could have monty haul DMs and parsimonious ones...nowadays everyone's stuck in the same old mold, forced into it by the assumptions of the rules.




Bingo.  When my Planescape campaign shifted from 2nd Ed. to 3rd Ed., it fundamentally changed....the opponents and challenges had changed, and my history as a "stingy" DM with respect to giving out treasure etc. started making the game really not work too well at times.  In the end, I had to start piling on the magic items to level things out.....something I hadn't done in the previous 4 years of running that game.  Other measures helped as well, such as changing opponents etc.  But it took major tinkering, whereas before, it didn't.  And the "tone" of the game definitely changed.

Banshee


----------



## Hussar (Jun 25, 2006)

RC said:
			
		

> Talk about magic items and spells....In every edition of D&D, there has been a lot of magic lying around, but in pre-3e D&D, the assumption was that the PCs would only recover a fraction of what was available to be found. Because character levels didn't rise like rockets, there was no inherent balance issues caused by playing a low-magic game. Now, mind you, in 3.X, you can play a low-magic game by using lower CR monsters, which will have the added benefit of slowing down level progression, so this isn't as hardwired as it seems at first blush. Yet, the XP value of any creature is based upon the assumption of a fairly rigorous arsenal.
> 
> Pre-3e D&D characters carry torches...they can blow out, get dropped, cause pockets of flammable gas to explode, and are generally messy. 3.X characters carry sunrods. There is no downside to them. And yet, again, it is easy to remove sunrods from the equipment lists.




These are myths that have already been busted.  Why do people keep bringing them back up.  Quasketon's excellent module examinations show that progression from 1st to about 10th level is almost IDENTICAL from 1e to 3e.

And, going through those old modules, the treasure wasn't well hidden and there certainly wasn't an assumption that you wouldn't find most of it.  99% of it was out in front and obvious.

And, I don't know about anyone else, but, Continual Light was a 2nd level spell in the games I played.  No group over third level EVER carried a torch.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> These are myths that have already been busted.  Why do people keep bringing them back up.  Quasketon's excellent module examinations show that progression from 1st to about 10th level is almost IDENTICAL from 1e to 3e.



*Quasqueton* makes a number of questionable assumptions in these "comparisons," *Hussar*. I wouldn't accept the conclusions as definitive.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 25, 2006)

> Wizards took so much more XP to gain levels than the other classes (especially at high levels), that high level wizards were relatively rare PCs compared with fighters and thieves.




Again, this is false.  Wizards at high levels need less xp than any other class other than rogues.  At early levels wizards were tough, but, at high levels, they were bumping levels faster than just about everyone else.



> Loads of them?
> 
> I'm not sure which "older editions" you're referencing, but aside from most demons, devils, and undead and the four basic elementals, there are only a handful in the 1e MM - the peryton, the intellect devourer, and the aerial servant come to mind. Most of the monsters in that book can be harmed with normal weapons, and a few with either silver, iron, or blessed weapons in lieu of enchanted ones.




Consider for a second how much of the monster manual you just tossed out there.  Undead, demons, devils, elementals, gargoyles, and a couple of others.  Pagewise, that's what, about a quarter of the Monster Manual?  And a fair chunk of any of the higher level creatures?

Of course, that's also ignoring the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual 2.  

There were a fairly large number of creatures that needed +x or better to hit.  Majority?  Of course not.  But a fair number nonetheless.

Oh, and clerics in Scarred Lands Rock.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Consider for a second how much of the monster manual you just tossed out there.  Undead, demons, devils, elementals, gargoyles, and a couple of others.  Pagewise, that's what, about a quarter of the Monster Manual?



Leaving three-quarters of the monsters that can be battled effectively without using magical weapons.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> And a fair chunk of any of the higher level creatures?



Even the most miserly dungeon masters usually manage to hand out a +1 or +2 magic sword by 8th or 9th level. The number of monsters that can only be hit by a +3 or better weapon is pretty small, if memory serves.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Of course, that's also ignoring the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual 2.



Sadly I don't have either of those books anymore, and I don't remember those critters as well as I do the first _MM_, I'm afraid, so I can't say for sure.

Then again, both these books were late to the party - somehow we managed to play for years on the first monster book alone.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> *Quasqueton* makes a number of questionable assumptions in these "comparisons," *Hussar*. I wouldn't accept the conclusions as definitive.




Sigh, I always spell his name wrong.  

I also noted that in those threads, he never once gave a single xp point for any of the magic that was in the module.  That would MORE than make up for any questionable xp practices.  IME, the majority of xp came from cash and magic.  Killing stuff was just a side benefit.

Or, to put it another way, when a module has over a million gp's in it and you get 1 xp for each, you get lots, and lots of xp.

/edit - about the magic items in 1e and 2e.

I've said this before and I'll repeat it here.  A 1e and 2e paladin was limited to TEN magic items.  TEN.  That means that every other character was assumed to have more than ten.  A limitation which applies to everyone is hardly a limitation to any one is it?  

The idea that 1e and 2e characters weren't walking around with a Christmas tree full of magic goodies is just so far removed from my experience that I have trouble believing it.  For a "standard" six person party in 1e to have enough magic for the paladin to feel the pinch means they should be toting around over SIXTY magic items.

Then again, I still remember fondly my 1e paladin with his hammer of thunderbolts, girdle of giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power care of the G series adventures.  Nothing like being able to kill ancient huge red dragons in a couple of rounds.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I also noted that in those threads, he never once gave a single xp point for any of the magic that was in the module.  That would MORE than make up for any questionable xp practices....Or, to put it another way, when a module has over a million gp's in it and you get 1 xp for each, you get lots, and lots of xp.



Among the questionable assumptions are (1) the assumption that the adventurers will loot every single  item of value from the dungeon or other adventure site and (2) the assumption that the training rules as written are not in effect.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I've said this before and I'll repeat it here.  A 1e and 2e paladin was limited to TEN magic items.  TEN.  That means that every other character was assumed to have more than ten.



Forgive me, *Hussar*, but that's a _non causa pro causa_ fallacy - you just shot your own argument in the foot.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The idea that 1e and 2e characters weren't walking around with a Christmas tree full of magic goodies is just so far removed from my experience that I have trouble believing it.



Then again, we've established that your experience is a bit removed from the rules of the game as well.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The idea that 1e and 2e characters weren't walking around with a Christmas tree full of magic goodies is just so far removed from my experience that I have trouble believing it.  For a "standard" six person party in 1e to have enough magic for the paladin to feel the pinch means they should be toting around over SIXTY magic items.
> 
> Then again, I still remember fondly my 1e paladin with his hammer of thunderbolts, girdle of giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power care of the G series adventures.  Nothing like being able to kill ancient huge red dragons in a couple of rounds.




At some point the "Christmas tree full of magic items" became synonymous with "1e is just as bad as 3e!" when it really misses the point entirely. I think it's addressing the character abilities versus magic items when defining what you can do, which isn't the problem in general. In my opinion, there's a specific problem when every character has to have cloak of resistance +x, stat boost +x, weapon +x, and AC +x just to be able to fight the creatures the game assumes you can fight. Even if the wealth by level was reasonable (it's too low at the bottom and too high at the top, imo), much of it is sucked into these mundane items that don't carry a lot of excitement with them.

Personally I loved the amount of magic items available in 1e and 2e, and it didn't matter that they defined your character's abilities...they were, in my experience, unique. Only one guy in the party might have a +2 weapon, so if you encountered a monster that took that to hit it, that guy was up front no matter who he was! Now there's this weird egalitarianism going on among characters so that nobody's feelings are hurt or left out of combat. It all comes back to the wealth/CR system restricting game options and the level system shooting characters through levels so fast that it becomes its own end rather than something cool that happens occasionally. Up until 3e I had a grand total of TWO 16th-level characters and ONE 12th-level character, and I remember them fondly. In 3e, however, those are no big deal, and I can whip up a 16th-level character in no time flat, thanks to the Easy, Cookie Cutter Character Creation System (TM)! Playing 16th level in 3e feels the same as playing 2nd level, except that everyone in the party has to be flying, invisible, displaced, ethereal, hasted, using a silver/cold iron/adamantine weapon with a base damage of 37, and with 17 potions injectable as a free action just to be able to survive, since all the monsters at that CR assume they are.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Of course, a dungeon master isn't obligated to use monsters that can only be hit by magic weapons in any edition.




That's true with any edition.  Why complain that assumptions are made about player equipment with certain monsters if you can just not use them?  Because DMs _want to use them_.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I also noted that in those threads, he never once gave a single xp point for any of the magic that was in the module.




Well, I distinctly remember Gary stating you didn't get any xp for magic items unless you sold them (thus having the choice of getting xp, or of using the magic item).  Given the lack of "magic stores" in some campaigns, it wasn't easy to sell them.

Of course, this lead to the contradiction in early D&D assumptions that made some players question the soundness of them.  Players were expected to sell magic,  but weren't supposed to be buying it (without jumping through hoops).



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I've said this before and I'll repeat it here.  A 1e and 2e paladin was limited to TEN magic items.  TEN.  That means that every other character was assumed to have more than ten.  A limitation which applies to everyone is hardly a limitation to any one is it?




That doesn't necessarily follow.  Rangers were limited to only three working together at the same time.  Does that mean that the other classes were assumed to have more than three working together?

I'm really suprised in these discussions how rarely the main thing that changed D&D dynamics (at least in this area).  The relative ease with which players can create magic items.  In prior editions it was incredibly rare for PCs to be making magic items.  Even scrolls and potions required mid-level characters.  Plus, you were expected to jump through many hoops to make them (want to make a potion of healing, better get that unicorn horn).


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 25, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'm really suprised in these discussions how rarely the main thing that changed D&D dynamics (at least in this area).  The relative ease with which players can create magic items.  In prior editions it was incredibly rare for PCs to be making magic items.  Even scrolls and potions required mid-level characters.  Plus, you were expected to jump through many hoops to make them (want to make a potion of healing, better get that unicorn horn).




Quite right, and that ties into the speed-leveling and cloned equipment problems...in a system that requires you to have x,y,z and to upgrade x,y,z every 26-39 encounters, you have to be able to have easy access to a wide variety of magic items, either through magic shops, DM recognition, or the ability to make your own (it's the thought that counts, right?  ).


----------



## Imp (Jun 25, 2006)

It wasn't assumed in AD&D that high level characters would be going after arch-devils or other things that needed a +3 weapon to hit!  You could easily spend your time cleaning out lairs of orcs threatening your stronghold or some such.  You might not be getting xp for the kills but you certainly would for the loot (the major source of xp in AD&D, as I remember it.)  You usually did have a +2/ something special weapon by 8th or 9th level, though, so lycanthropes and such weren't anything especially hard.

The notion that wizards or anyone in AD&D would be regularly "bumping" levels once they got high enough is hilarious.

I do think part of the problem with the 3e Christmas tree is that it's so generic: bonuses in slots for everyone whee.  What about the dude who wants to run around in an Apparatus of Kwalish?

* never, ever pulled off the hammer of thunderbolts trifecta; it was quite enough for me to dream of swords of sharpness or that sweet rod of flailing in UA thank you very much! *


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'm really suprised in these discussions how rarely the main thing that changed D&D dynamics (at least in this area).  The relative ease with which players can create magic items.  In prior editions it was incredibly rare for PCs to be making magic items.  Even scrolls and potions required mid-level characters.  Plus, you were expected to jump through many hoops to make them (want to make a potion of healing, better get that unicorn horn).



Yep - this is something else that *Quasqueton* overlooked in drawing comparisons between the magical wealth of 1e and 3e characters.

It's also a great source of adventures in 1e...

"Okay, troops, we need to hire a ship."

"What for?"

"Giant squid fishing trip!"


----------



## Pants (Jun 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Loads of them?



From the 2e Monstrous Manual:

Ju-Ju Zombie - Requires +1 or greater to hit
Yugoloth, Lesser and greater
Wraith
Wolfwere - +1 or cold iron
Vampire
Troll, Spectral - magic or silver
Troll, Spirit - magic
Titan
Tarrasque - +1 or better
Tanar'ri, Marilith - +2 or better
Tanar'ri, Balor - +3 or better
Swanmay - +1 or better
Spectre - +1 or better 
Slaad, Blue - +1 or better
Skeleton Warrior
Shadow - +1 or better
Rakshasa - +1 or better
Rakshasa, Greater - +2 or better
Poltergeist - silver or magic
Pheonix - +3 or better
Peryton - +1 or better
Mummy, Greater - +1 to +4 to hit
Mist, Crimson Death - +1 or better
Lycanthrope - silver or magic
Lich - +1 or better
Lich, Demilich - +4 or better (plus other exceptions)
Jackalwere - cold iron or magic
Intellect Devourer - +3 or better
Imp/Quasit - silver/cold iron or magic
Huecuva - silver or magic
Haunt - silver or magic
Golem, Glass/Stone/Flesh/Clay - +2 or better
Golem, Iron - +3 or better
Ghost - silver or magic
Gargoyle/Margoyle - +1 or better
Elemental, Tempest/Skriaxi - +2 or better
Elemental, Salamander - +1 or better
Elemental, Aerial Servant - +1 or better
Elemental, Fire/Air/Earth/Water - +2 or better
Dog, Moon - +2 or better
Crypt Thing - Magic weapons
Baatezu, Pit Fiend - +3 or better
Baatezu, Abishai - +1 or better


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> (List snipped for sake of brevity.)



As with 1e, the list is heavy with fiends and undead.

Now, how many critters in the 2e _MM_ do not require +1 or better magical weapons to fight?


----------



## Pants (Jun 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> As with 1e, the list is heavy with fiends and undead.
> 
> Now, how many critters in the 2e _MM_ do not require +1 or better magical weapons to fight?



You're avoiding a central issue here. In 1e and 2e, many of these creatures could not be physcially harmed without magic. In 3.x, if you hit them hard enough, you can hurt them, making magic weapons nice, but not totally necessary.


----------



## Menexenus (Jun 25, 2006)

A'koss said:
			
		

> For me, and I'm willing to bet for more than a few of you, that a lot of the perceived problems with D&D stem from the fact that it doesn't do a good job at mirroring the kind of fantasy (movies, literature) that we grew up with.
> 
> D&D only reflects itself. Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into _playing_ the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).
> 
> ...




I really have to agree with A'Koss (and the OP) that there is a bit of a bait-and-switch with D&D.  You read about wizards and orcs and hobbits in Tolkien, and then you find this game D&D that lets you play a halfling (kind of like a hobbit), lets you cast spells, and lets you fight orcs.  And you start to think that this game models fantasy fiction.  And I think that even at the inception of D&D, this misconception was actively encouraged by the designers.

But D&D itself is a much more high magic setting than almost any popular fantasy novel has described.  So there can be a feeling of let down when you realize that D&D will never quite be like the fantasy novels you have read (until you realize that that's probably for the best).

However, I disagree with the OP when he tries to localize this "problem" with 3rd edition.  I agree with those who have said that this high-magic bias has been there from the beginning.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> You're avoiding a central issue here. In 1e and 2e, many of these creatures could not be physcially harmed without magic. In 3.x, if you hit them hard enough, you can hurt them, making magic weapons nice, but not totally necessary.



That's the central issue?

I replied to this:







			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Older editions definitely required you to have lots of magic. Look at how many creatures were unable to be dmaged except by a +1/2/3/4/5 magic weapon. Loads of them.



I disagree about both the "requirement" of "lots of magic" and that there are "loads" of monsters that can't be fought without magical weapons, and it was to that I responded. Given that "lots" and "loads" are pretty subjective measurements, I suppose the point could be argued in different ways, but that was my take on it.

I can kinda, sorta see where you might take that to be about magic weapons as a means of bypassing DR, though I disagree that was the "central issue." That said, let's look at that for a moment. Damage resistance versus magic, cold iron, silver, _et cetera_ is something that I really like from 3e - I've adapted this to other games that I run in other genres 'cause I think it's cool.

My question is, so what? In 1e if you encountered a critter immune to your weapons, you used other magic to attack or defend, or you ran away - sometimes you went on a quest to locate a weapon that would be effective against the critter and came back for a second-helping later on. Whatever route the players took, it was good stuff for adventures.

Moveover, an ounce of sense and a dash of restraint was all it took for a dungeon master to avoid springing one "+1 or better to hit" critter after another on a defenseless, attackless party of adventurers. The fact that a 3e dungeon master can spring a critter immune to cold iron on a party with no means of doing more than a couple of hit points of damage per round using standard weaponry doesn't seem like a profound change to me - chances are that the party is still likely to use other magic, or run, or obtain an appropriate weapon and come back later, rather than slug it out doing two or three points of damage per round - at least, that has been my experience, which I don't presume is universal.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *is just going to say this*
> 
> LEVELING ISN"T A BAD THING!




Of course not.  But the point is that leveling, in and of itself, isn't a _good thing_ either.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> These are myths that have already been busted.  Why do people keep bringing them back up.  Quasketon's excellent module examinations show that progression from 1st to about 10th level is almost IDENTICAL from 1e to 3e.




These are observations that you prefer to call myths and that you believe have been dispelled.  If progression from 1st to 10th level in 1e and 3e are the same, please tell me how many orcs I have to kill to get to 10th level in both editions.  If the numbers are the same, I'll call you correct.



> And, going through those old modules, the treasure wasn't well hidden and there certainly wasn't an assumption that you wouldn't find most of it.  99% of it was out in front and obvious.




I just ran the cavern portion of _Keep on the Borderlands_, using the 3.X update available on EnWorld.  The group found approximately 10-15% of the treasure, and complained that they had no magic weapons.  Absolute truth.



> And, I don't know about anyone else, but, Continual Light was a 2nd level spell in the games I played.  No group over third level EVER carried a torch.




My experience is different.

RC


----------



## Psion (Jun 25, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> *Quasqueton* makes a number of questionable assumptions in these "comparisons," *Hussar*. I wouldn't accept the conclusions as definitive.




Whatever the case, I find that they represent a greater effort to really analyze what is going on than the hearsay and anecdotes that usually get batted about on the issue.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 25, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Whatever the case, I find that they represent a greater effort to really analyze what is going on than the hearsay and anecdotes that usually get batted about on the issue.



A greater effort, yes, but no more reliable than hearsay and anecdotes.

Lining up columns of numbers side-by-side isn't sufficient to draw conclusions if the numbers in each column mean different things, and there is a sea-change in some important conceits between earlier and later editions for which *Quaqueton* doesn't account, in my humble opinion (and with no disrespect for *Quasqueton* intended).


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 25, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Whatever the case, I find that they represent a greater effort to really analyze what is going on than the hearsay and anecdotes that usually get batted about on the issue.




In fact, this is one of the things that led to me starting my review threads on _The Strategic Review_ & _The Dragon_.  While they don't give a perfect snapshot of what is going on, they give a look into what people were discussing, what those in the company believed and said they believed (which weren't always the same thing).

I'm not trying to prove any points (except maybe that people perceptions have been colored over time).  I'm just trying to look at things then and seeing how things really were.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 26, 2006)

How to "fix" D&D 3E to be like 1E.

Step 1) Make XP to level exponential.
Step 2) Remove CR and give the monsters XP equal to CR*10
Step 3) Remove wealth by level guidelines

There ya go.

There's an alternative as well.

Give out whatever magical items you feel like and ignore CR when designing encounters, actually looking at their stats like you did back in 1E.

Either way works.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> How to "fix" D&D 3E to be like 1E.
> 
> Step 1) Make XP to level exponential.
> Step 2) Remove CR and give the monsters XP equal to CR*10
> ...




Then streamline the combat system.  A lot.  

And make the NPCs easier to stat up.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then streamline the combat system.  A lot.



You mean "obfuscate".

Actually, I'll be nice:

There's a difference between "streamlining" and "reducing any reasonably complex combat action to adjudication via DM fiat".

First and Second Edition AD&D worked via the latter method. There's nothing *wrong* with it, but it's not inherently *streamlined* because, as the weight of anecdotal evidence suggests, your average AD&D DM had one or two . . . "quirky" assumptions about what would be "faster", "more realistic", or "more fun" in combat.

Like people who think weapon speeds are fun or realistic.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> A greater effort, yes, but no more reliable than hearsay and anecdotes.




I think I have to beg to differ.

Any two anecdotes vary wildly based on a player's personal experience. Quas' analysis, while it may include some assumptions you may not care for, is a look at modules in black and white, and can be adjusted for any changes of the assumptions you care to make of it. In short, he shows the source of his analysis and lays bare how he arrives at the conclusion. Though they are open to interpretation, he lays the fact bare regarding the actual systems so they can be compared without the baggage of "how my group ran/runs things."

That's better than any "well, in my game..." anecdote, which really say as much or more about your group and GM than the systems.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, this is false.  Wizards at high levels need less xp than any other class other than rogues.  At early levels wizards were tough, but, at high levels, they were bumping levels faster than just about everyone else.




Well, looking at the 1E AD&D PHB, you have Fighters needing a total of 1 million XP at the upper end of level 11 and 250k/level after.  Clerics were same cost/level and 900k at the top end.  Thieves topped level 12 at 660k and only needed 200k/level.  Wizards level chart tops out at 3,375,000 and needs another 375k/level.  So no, the mages require far more XP.

So at the top of level 18 for each of the 4 core classes we would have:

(ie 1 more XP will level them)
Wizard 3,375,000
Fighter 2,750,000
Cleric 2,650,000
Thief 1,860,000

So I dunno what PHB you were looking at, unless we're talking Basic and the n I hafta go into the next room and grab Basic thru Immortal


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 26, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> (Snipped for brevity.)



I don't think what *Quasqueton* has done rises to the level of "analysis."

Comparing two things that can't be compared directly, then drawing conclusions without addressing either this inherent incompatability or certain critical differences in the underlying assumptions of each system, may serve to obfuscate more than enlighten - in short, it gives a false sense of authority to the "results."

To be done correctly, the two systems being compared must share a common metric, and the assumptions of each system spelled out explicitly and their effects on the outcome considered. While *Quasqueton* has certainly made a yeoman's stride in that direction by collecting the numbers, the numbers left to themselves tell a misleading story.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2006)

Check out the 2e PHB.  

RC - the kill xp you got in 1e was DWARFED by the xp from treasure.  You could likely remove all the kill xp from a 10th level character and lose maybe 1 level if you played modules exclusively.  

The comparison is specious.

As far as the latin complaint about limitations to paladins, well, can someone please explain to me how it can be a limitation on a character class if no one can approach that limit?

The no three rangers bit is similar, but not quite the same.  Sure, the assumption isn't that there are three of every other class first.  However, classes and treasure found are not the same thing.  The limitation was a flavour issue because rangers were supposed to act independently.

I would point out that this limitation was removed in 2e when the flavour of the class was changed.

However, the 10 items limit for paladins was kept because it was a mechanical limitation on a class which was a fair bit more powerful than the other classes.  The assumption has to be that other PC's would have more than 10 items.  If no one does, then the limit has no meaning.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 26, 2006)

re: the 10 item limit on paladins -- note that it was, specifically, 1 magic armor, 1 magic shield, 4 magic weapons, 4 other magic items (even potions count).  This means that the limitation might come up even if one doesn't "max out" at 10 items.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Check out the 2e PHB.
> 
> RC - the kill xp you got in 1e was DWARFED by the xp from treasure.  You could likely remove all the kill xp from a 10th level character and lose maybe 1 level if you played modules exclusively.
> 
> The comparison is specious.




Hussar, how conversant are you with 1st Edition?  I mean, do you have the books before you?  If we assume that one is playing the RAW in either 1e or 3e, wouldn't knowledge of the RAW be necessary for any clear analysis?

IME, XP for gp value was the most often ignored rule in the game -- even more than weapon bonus vs armor type -- but we shouldn't assume that mine was an average game.  What we should assume is that the balance of treasure required work to locate, work to identify as treasure, and work to turn into gp (which is when it would become XP per RAW).  This work was not to be done by a Seach Check followed by an Appraise Check, but by the players' own wits.

Again, my group recently went through the caves in _Keep on the Borderland_ updated to 3e.  Even with their Search and Appraise checks, they got about 10-15% of the available treasure and completely failed to recognize any magic weapon as such.  The only thing that "pinged" magic to them was a shield used as a tray.  The catnip actually interested them far more than the gold.

This is in a low-money, low-magic campaign world where they could use that stuff.  Not surprisingly, this group had roughly the same reactions to the Caves as the groups I ran through the original module Lo these many years ago.



> As far as the latin complaint about limitations to paladins, well, can someone please explain to me how it can be a limitation on a character class if no one can approach that limit?




Don't forget that the limit is far more specific than 10 items.  It tells you exactly what those items can be.  There is no "golf bag of magic swords" for the 1e paladin.  That poor soul could easily be thwarted on magic items well before reaching 10.  Ten items is the cumulative effect of a lot of lower prohibitiions.  Again, read the text.

Therefore, the following bit of reasoning

However, the 10 items limit for paladins was kept because it was a mechanical limitation on a class which was a fair bit more powerful than the other classes.  The assumption has to be that other PC's would have more than 10 items.  If no one does, then the limit has no meaning.​
fails because it fails to take into account what the limitation in the rules actually is.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2006)

Four magic weapons isn't a golf bag?  True, you could hit the magic limit in one area before another.  But, again, let's take weapons.  That's TWENTY FOUR magic weapons in the party before the limit is hit (assuming a 6 man party).  

As far as what rules were chucked and kept, well, I thought we were discussing RAW.  Comparisons of campaign x vs campaign y are pretty pointless.  

For example, finding magic weapons.  Magic weapons glowed.  Not tricky to find.  They may not have in your campaign, but, by RAW, they did.  If your guys only found 15-20% of the equipment, I would wonder about your players and if you are using the 200ish page book of house rules you have touted before.  You have also mentioned before that you force players to specify exactly what they are doing when they search and "I search the room" is not good enough.

My lot finishes off an area, piles everything that isn't nailed down into one room and whacks it with a detect magic.  They don't miss much.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Four magic weapons isn't a golf bag?  True, you could hit the magic limit in one area before another.  But, again, let's take weapons.  That's TWENTY FOUR magic weapons in the party before the limit is hit (assuming a 6 man party).




Nah.  The magic user might not have a magic weapon...he's hardly a melee guy.  The cleric wants to wade in melee, but per RAW most magic weapons are swords, so he's out of luck.  Magic weapons gravitate toward certain character types.  That doesn't mean that everyone in the party has one.

And that hard limit for paladins doesn't just mean that they cannot _use_ 5 magic weapons at once.  It means they cannot _carry_ 5 magic weapons.  They are not allowed to even bring back their enemies magic bling to sell.

And that fifth potion?  To bad, so sad.



> For example, finding magic weapons.  Magic weapons glowed.  Not tricky to find.  They may not have in your campaign, but, by RAW, they did.




And yet, also by RAW, they might not have appeared magical until unsheathed.  Moreover, by RAW, they did not have to glow at all.



> If your guys only found 15-20% of the equipment, I would wonder about your players




Are we getting personal now?  



> and if you are using the 200ish page book of house rules you have touted before.  You have also mentioned before that you force players to specify exactly what they are doing when they search and "I search the room" is not good enough.




That book of house rules is, at the moment, rewritten races, rewritten classes, clarifications on skills and additional skills (psychic and weapon skills), feats, alignment, personality, & description.  For example, in those house rules elves are very different than in standard D&D -- they are fey, have a court and host, etc.  Nothing that exactly prevents you from finding treasure.

"That battle with those orcs was tough!  Let's go somewhere and rest up for a couple of days" OTOH, does lead to "Hey, where did those orcs go?  And they took all their stuff?!?"     Natural consequences for action or inaction.

You are correct in saying that I give (potentially massive) bonuses to Search checks based upon description of where you search.  A thing hidden inside the fireplace is easier to find when searching the fireplace than simply the room, and easier still if you look inside the fireplace.  If there's something hidden beneath a pillow, no roll is low enough to miss it if you state specifically that you are looking below the pillow.  I also modify social skill checks based on what you actually say, so you might get a big bonus to your Diplomacy check if you make a reasonable offer.

_D&D should challenge both the player and the character._

When you examine the 3.X combat system, it is apparent that the player is intended to make many tactical decisions that the character was previously expected to make.  In other words, the combat system is designed to challenge the player as much as the character.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Thinking, however, that the previous editions challenged the player and the new edition does not, however, is simply wrong.  All that has changed is where that challenge occurs (combat and character creation)....and with it a stronger focus on exactly those areas.



> My lot finishes off an area, piles everything that isn't nailed down into one room and whacks it with a detect magic.  They don't miss much.




I guess you don't use all the RAW yourself:

You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

1st Round:  Presence or absence of magical auras.

2nd Round:  Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.

3rd Round:  The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + half caster level for a nonspell effect.)

Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.​
Per RAW, you should first detect that there is, indeed, magic in that pile.  However, because it is in that pile "In that pile" is probably the most you'd get from _detect magic_.  The stronger items would "ping" easily enough, but anything under other stuff could well be out of line of sight, and the weaker items are probably distorted or concealed.  And lets not forget that, per RAW, some things that were magical but are magical no longer might still seem to be dimly magical.

Your group doesn't miss much because you are generous.  There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I'm not so generous.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2006)

Well, no, because, by RAW, after the third round you get the "strength and location" of each item.  Pretty simple to move the pile around and triangulate.

Or, instead of pile, simply lay everything out in a single layer (which is actually what my bunch do - sorry, I wasn't precise enough in my description, my bad all things considered) and you no longer have to worry about the DM trying to screw you over.  

But, like the other thread, I'm just tired of people looking at both versions of the game through some very nostalgia colored glasses.  No, not all 1e games were "low magic" and, if you ran modules, there were bloody bags of magic lying around.  The idea that there has been this fundamental shift in the game is not due to anything other than the recognition in the rules of things that were always true but ignored by many DM's.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *D&D should challenge both the player and the character.*



Quoted for truth.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Or, instead of pile, simply lay everything out in a single layer (which is actually what my bunch do - sorry, I wasn't precise enough in my description, my bad all things considered) and you no longer have to worry about the DM trying to screw you over.




Natural consequence of action is not "the DM trying to screw you over."  I've had lots of players use the single layer tactic described above successfully....but they could only then detect what was in the layer.  It didn't make the things they failed to take detectable.  And, IME, players (myself included when a player) fail to take the darndest things.

As a DM, I never say what was missed.  I always assume that they, or another group, will go back to the same area one day.  I used to run this huge homebrewed dungeon beneath a city (the Dungeon of Thale, 25 levels, 6 sub-levels, an average of over 200 rooms per level, containing towns and cities within it) for several groups.  It was a lot of fun.  I imagine that your WLD setup must be similarly fun.  One of the things I did was include the caches of a lot of NPC adventurers...just extra equipment they had stashed in the dungeon, or treasure that they didn't want taxed.

(Eventually, PCs could discover a way in and out of the dungeon through the sewers, some buildings, etc., and avoid the taxes.)



> But, like the other thread, I'm just tired of people looking at both versions of the game through some very nostalgia colored glasses.




It is not nostalgia to say that 1e was more flexible in terms of what sort of campaign you wanted to run.  It is not nostalgia to say that running the gamut of 1-20 levels was not what 1e was about.  It is not nostalgia to say that statting out opponents in 3e takes longer than in 1e, or that 3e combats take longer than 1e combats to run.  

No one said (to my knowledge) that all 1e games were low magic.  However, in 1e you could easily make that choice, and no one tried to imply that the game would implode.  In reality, 3e is more flexible than 1e (trying to run a mundane people in fantasy world game ala Lewis, DeLint, Burroughs, or numerous other authors just didn't work in 1e IME and IMHO), but all too often players of 3e seem to buy into this mindset that any change will destroy the game.  

That's a paradigm shift, and a bad one.

That things could be possible in the rules "but ignored by many DM's" is a _good thing_.  If something was ignored by _most_ DMs, there was probably a good reason.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, no, because, by RAW, after the third round you get the "strength and location" of each item.  Pretty simple to move the pile around and triangulate.




BTW, again, that's a sign of your generosity.

If there are several thousand objects in your pile (everything, right?) moving stuff around and triangulating assumes that you can remember the initial positions of those items.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then streamline the combat system. A lot.




It's far more streamlined in 3E than in previous editions.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And make the NPCs easier to stat up.




On this front, 3E could benefit greatly from something like IH's villain classes. Or at least quick build methods for NPCs. It's something I keep meaning to do myself for my own use, but I never get around to doing it even though it would save me time in the long run. I admit that most major NPCs (anyone within ~3 CR of the PCs' ECL) have a prestige class and at least half of those are probably full spellcasters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It's far more streamlined in 3E than in previous editions.




Combat?  3e assumes that players have to make decisions on a round-by-round basis that, previously, their characters would have been assumed to have made.  The introduction of feats means that each and every combat can, and probably does, have special conditions that have to be taken into account.  Although the math in THAC0 (which first popped up in 1e) was counter-intuitive, it wasn't really any more difficult than figuring out what modifiers to AC apply to the attack you are making in 3e.  

If you say that the 3e combat system is _better_ than that of previous editions, I won't argue.  If you say it is more _streamlined_, I disagree vehemently.



> On this front, 3E could benefit greatly from something like IH's villain classes. Or at least quick build methods for NPCs. It's something I keep meaning to do myself for my own use, but I never get around to doing it even though it would save me time in the long run. I admit that most major NPCs (anyone within ~3 CR of the PCs' ECL) have a prestige class and at least half of those are probably full spellcasters.




I certainly agree that quick build methods for NPCs would be a great boon to the game.

RC


----------



## rounser (Jun 26, 2006)

> Settings like Ptolus and Eberron are actually making great use of an old Dragon article that was one of the greatest Sense of Wonder pieces I'd ever read in direct relation to D&D. It was an article devoted to what happens when you have a magic using society and the changes in society. I believei t had several of the talked about things like invisible guardsmen, bans on detection, continual light streetlights, teleportation circles for shipping, etc. I'm sure someone with an old Dragon archive disc set can find it.
> 
> Things like that were what always really interested me and I wondered why they didn't do that in the game. Now they do.



IMO this is a *terrible, terrible* idea, and explains some of why I'm allergic to the premises of these settings.

Exploring the logical consequences of magic on society is like exploring the consequences of physics on a dragon; the fantasy comes crashing to the ground, and the magic loses it's magic.  Geeks love to analyse systems, but exploring the "logical consequences" of fantasy is like overanalysing romance; by analysing it and tying up it's loose threads, you kill it stone dead.

It boggles my mind that you think pinning down _fantasy_ as a quantifiable cause-and-effect thing (i.e. a science) is going to _improve_  sensawunda, instead of inevitably grinding it to dust.


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 26, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Exploring the logical consequences of magic on society is like exploring the consequences of physics on a dragon; the fantasy comes crashing to the ground, and the magic loses it's magic.  Geeks love to analyse systems, but exploring the "logical consequences" of fantasy is like overanalysing romance; by analysing it and tying up it's loose threads, you kill it stone dead.




It all comes down to a matter of which logical bits hurt your willing suspension of disbelief.  I don't feel Eberron goes to deeply into it.  

Take a 1E premise that was common.  Players can't go around buying magic items, they are too rare and valuable.  Players can sell magic items, but only get so much because "they aren't worth it."  That broke a lot of people's ability to believe a setting.  Thus most campaigns I played in had some sort of a magic store (the exact method varied from campaign to campaign).


----------



## rounser (Jun 26, 2006)

> It all comes down to a matter of which logical bits hurt your willing suspension of disbelief. I don't feel Eberron goes to deeply into it.



Going some way down that path also seems to ensure a fair bit of "love it or hate it" type material.  Usually this sort of thing crops up in experimental homebrews.  But then, one person's lame is another's cool.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Take a 1E premise that was common.  Players can't go around buying magic items, they are too rare and valuable.  Players can sell magic items, but only get so much because "they aren't worth it."  That broke a lot of people's ability to believe a setting.  Thus most campaigns I played in had some sort of a magic store (the exact method varied from campaign to campaign).




I always thought that the limitation on selling magic items was based upon finding someone who can afford them.  PCs in 1e were exceptionally wealthy individuals, even on character creation (it states this explicitly in the PHB) for the area they are in.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, like the other thread, I'm just tired of people looking at both versions of the game through some very nostalgia colored glasses.



(Edited by *The Shaman*.)

Both fans of earlier editions and the current edition make the same mistakes at times, *Hussar*. It's too easy to dismiss preferences for older games as "nostalgia" - it's a sweeping and inaccurate generalization that's no more true than saying, "All 3e players are munchkins and powergamers." An edition choice can be an informed preference, and dismissing it with pejoratives like "nostalgia" serves nothing and no one.

With that in mind, as the wise man says, "There are two kinds of fools in the world. The first says, 'This is old, therefore it is good.' The second says, 'This is new, therefore it is better.'"

Personally I have no desire to play any edition of _D&D_ anymore - there are other game systems I like better, some new, some old, all on their own merits. I admit it does get my back up a bit when gamers criticize a system or an edition they obviously don't know very well, but that's just 'cause I'm cantankerous like that.

Now get off my lawn you kids before I turn th' hose on ya!


----------



## Glyfair (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I always thought that the limitation on selling magic items was based upon finding someone who can afford them.  PCs in 1e were exceptionally wealthy individuals, even on character creation (it states this explicitly in the PHB) for the area they are in.




Perhaps, who could afford the magic items then?  Adventurers, it seems like (since they are exceptionally wealthy individuals).  However, Gary, among others, have did go on the record and say PCs shouldn't be able to buy magic items.

The reasons were pure metagaming (keep the players poor so they want to adventure) that fell apart when looked at too closely.  

Indeed, the whole D&D economic system wasn't feasable.  It bore up well when the adventures focused on the dungeon.  Once adventuring moved away from the dungeon into the "real world", people started seeing flaws in it.  It's still not particularly accurate, but it does have a different model now.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Perhaps, who could afford the magic items then?  Adventurers, it seems like (since they are exceptionally wealthy individuals).  However, Gary, among others, have did go on the record and say PCs shouldn't be able to buy magic items.




Again, because who would they buy them from?  When magic items are rare and precious, who willingly parts with them?  You might be able to buy the odd item here and there, but wholesale magic shops?

A conceit of 1e was that the current gameworld was in a "dark age" and the PCs were uncovering the wonders of a previous era.  The secrets to making many of these items had been lost, or required vast research.  Hence the dungeon, which was often the ruins from that previous civilization.  Mighty magics existed before the Rain of Colorless Fire, or in ancient Myth Drannor.  Their like is not to be found among mortals in this age, save those who have delved into the dangerous ruins of the past and won their secrets.



> Indeed, the whole D&D economic system wasn't feasable.  It bore up well when the adventures focused on the dungeon.  Once adventuring moved away from the dungeon into the "real world", people started seeing flaws in it.  It's still not particularly accurate, but it does have a different model now.




Again, the prices in the PHB were stated to be specifically based upon a "gold rush" mentality fostered by the sudden influx of wealth adventuring caused.  If you followed the RAW, you would presumably take this into account, and prices would drop as the PCs travelled farther and farther from the wild adventuring regions.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you say that the 3e combat system is better than that of previous editions, I won't argue. If you say it is more streamlined, I disagree vehemently.




I have fond memories of the very complicated and convoluted system of 2E running through my head. Many of them I ignored, but they were still there. Rolling initiative every round with initiative modifiers changing. Different ACs depending on weapon type vs. armor type. Different attack forms having completely different rules. THAC0. Spells that required more adjudication (good ol' expanding _fireball_).

3E really did streamline things as far as I'm concerned. Most things are done with d20+mods for a target number. Now, it did many more options to remember. If you don't know the rules then you're worse off in 3E, since in previous editions as the DM I could basically run everything without the Players having as much knowledge about the rules. But, I think the rules themselves are much more streamlined nowadays.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, because who would they buy them from? When magic items are rare and precious, who willingly parts with them? You might be able to buy the odd item here and there, but wholesale magic shops?




Who was willing to part with them? Obviously a LOT of PCs would be willing to part with their magical items! At the very least, they would be looking to trade magical items if possible. So, if the PCs are willing to buy and sell and trade in magical items, why aren't the NPC adventurers? 

Basically, its a breakdown in logic in a world where NPCs are loathe to ever get rid of magical items, but PCs are willing to sell items (and can even be rewarded for it with XP!). In this type of world, why aren't the NPC adventurers also looking to sell their magical items when they get back into town as well? Why are they all hoarding them?

Answer (IMO): Because the game was built with magical items as a DM controlled reward, much like XP. Not because it made any sort of sense in the actual game world.


----------



## CF (Jun 26, 2006)

I agree. 3.x is pretty much lighter than it's former incarnations when it comes to combat (and most of the other stuff).

However, I really don't like it's inability to decide if the combat should be simple or complex. We got squares and aoos, in order to make things more tactical. On the other hand we don't have called shots (just an example, I don't like called shots) or more rules on tactical "attack-like" manouvers, only tactical movement.

In that matter, there are OGL options much more streamlined.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 26, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> IMO this is a *terrible, terrible* idea, and explains some of why I'm allergic to the premises of these settings.
> 
> Exploring the logical consequences of magic on society is like exploring the consequences of physics on a dragon; the fantasy comes crashing to the ground, and the magic loses it's magic.  Geeks love to analyse systems, but exploring the "logical consequences" of fantasy is like overanalysing romance; by analysing it and tying up it's loose threads, you kill it stone dead.
> 
> It boggles my mind that you think pinning down _fantasy_ as a quantifiable cause-and-effect thing (i.e. a science) is going to _improve_  sensawunda, instead of inevitably grinding it to dust.




B/c a world where magic exists but they haven't taken advantage of it to have say....a decanter of endless water helping to irrigate dry lands or continual light to keep teh streets safe at night, etc etc. just doesn't make SENSE!  This is a matter of internal consistency.  For me, a fantasy world where none of this stuff is done kills my sense of wonder...or encourages the wrong kind like "well why doesn't X Y or Z happen around here, we have easy disease curing after all".  That knocks me out fo character, whereas I see a society steeped in magic, doing interesting (altho obviously you dislike real world tech translated into magical terms..I dig it) things with the magic that makes sense for a society where magic has been worked by people for centuries and millenia.  

As far as quantifiable, what do you think spells are?  If you say bibbity bobbity boo and wave your magic wand, you can turn a mouse into a horse.  If you sprinkle some pixie dust, you will be able to fly.  Quantifiable results based on effort.  Sounds like science to me.  Of course, any science that is far enough ahead of the technology level of a society will be viewed as magic.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

I like my D&D to be D&Dish. Where else am I going to get that? It's been mentioned numerous times in various posts that it doesn't really reflect any of the other fantasy and that it has its own vision of fantasy, so yeah ... I mean no. It isn't too D&Dish.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I have fond memories of the very complicated and convoluted system of 2E running through my head. Many of them I ignored, but they were still there. Rolling initiative every round with initiative modifiers changing. Different ACs depending on weapon type vs. armor type. Different attack forms having completely different rules. THAC0. Spells that required more adjudication (good ol' expanding _fireball_).




You are conflating editions here, I think.  Weapon vs. armor type was dropped in 2e, wasn't it?  Needless to say, with the use of optional rules, you could make 2e a complicated beast.  But the core was as simple as that of 3e, without the 5' steps, AoOs, different ACs depending upon who was attacking you with what and when that complicate matters.  THAC0 *was* d20+mods compared against a target number.  

In 3e, what is the standard combat round like?

Move, attack, adjust position?  In order to move, check your route to ensure you provoke no AoOs?  Try to place your opponent in a flanked position, certainly.  In order to attack, determine what type of attack you are making so that you know whether or not you provoke an AoO, and to determine what AC your opponent has?  Roll, apply damage, then take a 5-foot step in order to avoid being flanked yourself, or to put yourself in position for an AoO?  Combat round done for you?  No.  You might have a swift action, a reaction (such as an AoO), or a free action yet to do.

By the time you've finished your turn, and we're on to the next player, _three rounds_ have gone by in 1e.  

For my money, something that is streamlined goes faster.  3e is elegant (unified mechanic) but not streamlined.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> B/c a world where magic exists but they haven't taken advantage of it to have say....a decanter of endless water helping to irrigate dry lands or continual light to keep teh streets safe at night, etc etc. just doesn't make SENSE!




We could feed everyone on earth.  We could house everyone.  We could control our population and save our environment.

Please explain the difference.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking: I agree that combat went A LOT faster in 2e than in 3e. However this, IMO, is due to the fact that the combat options in 2e were so very limited comparatively.

That being said, I wouldn't put forth the argument that 3e combat is streamlined.  The only comparison that would make it seem so would be to take the 2e rules and adapt the combat options from 3e to it and the result would be icky.

So I guess I agree with you. My thoughts are thus: 3e streamlined the combat as it was outlined in 2e ... and then added a bunch of wierd  your character could do that would slow it down again.

Thoughts?


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You are conflating editions here, I think.  Weapon vs. armor type was dropped in 2e, wasn't it?



It was present in 2e, but listed as an optional rule (that in my experience, was never, ever used).

Now, as for magic shops, it did seem awfully artificial that never under any circumstances would magic items be bought or sold.  The 2nd Edition book DM's Option: High Level Campaigns was particularly condescending about it (in a book with otherwise good ideas), and even had a silly picture of a wizard shopping at a Wal-Mart like store for magic items with bargain bins of wands to show how magic shops are inherently ridiculous and against the core ideas of D&D.  

I remember playing in a Planescape campaign where it really rang hollow.  The DM took that advice to heart about never having NPCs sell magic items, in the highest magic D&D setting out there.  Most monsters require magic weapons to hit, major parts of the campaign setting are devoted to cross-planar trading, and the campaign is built around a city where beings from across the multiverse come to conduct business, but nobody was willing to buy or sell magic items, because they are too precious to ever sell at any price.

However, why would a magic item shop automatically be like a late 20th or 21st century discount superstore?  Even something cheap like a potion of Cure Light Wounds costs far more than the typical peasant can afford, much less the thousands of GP required for even a +1 weapon.  Wal-Mart wouldn't look like Wal-Mart if even the most basic merchandise cost at least $500, and they stocked a few $500,000 items in the store that were small enough to walk away with.  I always envisioned magic items shops as being one of several things, all of which being reasonable outgrowths of the culture and power level of a typical D&D world:

1. Kind of like a cross between a jewelry store and a gun store (stores selling expensive and dangerous items).  Well protected glass cases protecting most items, display racks on the wall for the big things, very loyal guards keeping an eye on everything, probably numerous warding spells on the entire place to discourage theft and magical tampering.  Every item Identified by the store and its magical potency and function vouched for in a statement sworn on serious legal penalty.  A very heavy chest for all the money that changes hands, in a well fortified back room.  The entire place in one of the best neighborhoods in town, with plenty of city guards around.

2. An auction house.  A highly respected merchant company takes magic items to sell on consignment, and has a periodic auction.  The items are identified and legally vouched for in identity and kept under the tightest security.  The auction would attract interesting and wealthy people from all around: adventurers of all types, wealthy nobles, military leaders, powerful wizards and clerics, maybe a few intelligent monsters (depending on the local laws allowing them into town).  Very hefty security discourages anybody from getting violent though.

3. A brokerage.  They don't deal directly with the magic items, but they have ways of contacting many wizards and clerics (and other adventurers) who are interested in magic item creation or trading, and what they are looking for, have, or capiable of making.  You go to the brokerage, pay a fee to become a client, then pay another fee to make a search of the records for suchandsuch item.  They look for the nearest person who has such an item they are willing to sell or make, and contact them for you.  If they are still willing to provide the item, they put you in touch directly with them to conduct the trade.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> So I guess I agree with you. My thoughts are thus: 3e streamlined the combat as it was outlined in 2e ... and then added a bunch of wierd  your character could do that would slow it down again.
> 
> Thoughts?




Pretty much.  Of course that odd stuff is fun, so the question is, how do you _include_ the fun stuff and make combat _move_ again?  I haven't come up with a great answer to this one yet.

RC


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Pretty much.  Of course that odd stuff is fun, so the question is, how do you _include_ the fun stuff and make combat _move_ again?  I haven't come up with a great answer to this one yet.
> 
> RC




I've been kind of wrestling with this one, too, because I love the options but would really like the combat to flow well.

If I come up with something, I'll let you know. Right now I'm thinking 'quick reference sheet'.
Possibly that's just a band aid but great if it works.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Now, as for magic shops, it did seem awfully artificial that never under any circumstances would magic items be bought or sold.  The 2nd Edition book DM's Option: High Level Campaigns was particularly condescending about it (in a book with otherwise good ideas), and even had a silly picture of a wizard shopping at a Wal-Mart like store for magic items with bargain bins of wands to show how magic shops are inherently ridiculous and against the core ideas of D&D.




And yet, in their infinite wisdom, the creators of 3e chose to change the ideas to meet the rules, rather than changing the rules to meet the ideas.   :\   

As others have noted, 1e and 2e campaigns were not all low-magic settings.  Many people included magic shops in their campaigns, even if the majority did not, and doing so did not cause them to re-write the rules to compensate.  Conversely, 3.x has the idea of the magic shop firmly planted in the rules.  While I don't believe the rules need to be vastly rewritten to preclude them, it does require more work, and many people are under the impression that the system will implode without ready Mage-U-Marts.

I am not alone in thinking that this cheapened the sense of wonder created by the game.  Nor is this, as some would love to believe, nostalgia -- sense of wonder requires the unknown or a sense of the unknown.  It requires some idea of things that are larger than yourself.  It requires, in a word, mystery.  3.x made things so knowable that most of my major revisions were designed to inject mystery back into the rules.

RC


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am not alone in thinking that this cheapened the sense of wonder created by the game.



I am not alone in thinking that this made the worlds of D&D make far more sense, and strain suspension of disbelief far less, to make magic items a tradable and valuable commodity.

As for all the vaunted "mystery" of playing D&D, I do think that's nostalgia speaking.  When you're new, it's all shiny and fresh, and you really are wondering what that does and what that's like.  Magic stores didn't take the mystery away, playing and running D&D for many years did.  Magic stores not being in the way you remember things is what takes it away.

When I first played D&D, yes, there was so much mystery in everything, what is that monster, what does that spell do, how can they do that?  Later, as you get higher level with your characters and learn more of the rules, play other classes, even run a few games yourself and create a homebrew world maybe, you answer many of those questions.

Magic shops aren't against the core ideas of D&D, and nothing short of a mindwipe for the player will restore that same wide-eyed freshness that the game had back when you were first sitting down at it.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2006)

> Conversely, 3.x has the idea of the magic shop firmly planted in the rules.




Source please?

I've got a poll floating around here that shows that magic shops are by no means the rule of the day in most campaigns.  While buying magic is possible in most campaigns, and many mention that it is mostly limited to potions and scrolls and wands, the idea of wide open magic shops is most definitely not hard wired into the rules.


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 26, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> It boggles my mind that you think pinning down _fantasy_ as a quantifiable cause-and-effect thing (i.e. a science) is going to _improve_  sensawunda, instead of inevitably grinding it to dust.




Not improve, it's just another option. I prefer the old style sense of wonder in magic myself, but i have no problem with settings and authors exploring all the options out there. Regardless, it will appeal to someone, somewhere.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I am not alone in thinking that this made the worlds of D&D make far more sense, and strain suspension of disbelief far less, to make magic items a tradable and valuable commodity.




True.  But that doesn't mean that making magic items a valuable commodity should be hard-wired into the game.  



> As for all the vaunted "mystery" of playing D&D, I do think that's nostalgia speaking.




Nah.  Any DM worthy of the title can create mystery and a sense of wonder in a setting.  I'll go so far as to say that, within Eberron, the presence of magic-as-technology can be used to create a sense of mystery and wonder in much the same way that steamworks in a Victorian setting can be used.  In a recent thread, Wizzbang Dustyboots mentioned changing the description of bugbears to owl-headed humanoids for an adventure, so that the creatures would seem like something new and unknown.  This has nothing to do with nostalgia; it is a primary component of sense of wonder.

Magic shops can certainly work within a world, but they take more work than they are generally given to avoid feeling cheap.  In 2e, magic shops were specifically part of the Spelljammer setting, where the authors attempted to interject a sense of the wondrous to them through the creation of the Arcane.  The Arcane were also an attempt to deal with the obvious "Why not just steal from the magic shop?" question.

Are magic shops against the core ideas of the D&D rules, at least in previous editions?  Somebody wise once said

Now, as for magic shops, it did seem awfully artificial that never under any circumstances would magic items be bought or sold. The 2nd Edition book DM's Option: High Level Campaigns was particularly condescending about it​
which makes it seem as though *he* believed that the designers thought it was against the core ideas of the game.  However, I could be mistaken.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Source please?




The equipment lists in the Player's Handbook is a fairly simple place to start.

IMHO, your poll shows that people do not automatically accept the assumptions in the rules; it does not show that the assumptions are not there.

RC


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Source please?





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The equipment lists in the Player's Handbook is a fairly simple place to start.




The only magical items mentioned in the PHB equipment lists are Holy Water and the Everburning Torch, both of which are the absolute simplest items to make without an XP cost. (Back in 1E and 2E you had the same thing; after the cleric hit third level nobody ever bought a lamp, candle, torch or any other form of lighting ever again.) The rest of the unusual stuff in there is mundane alchemical equipment that anyone with enough ranks could make.

Now there is the phrase about you generally being able to find anything under 3000gp that you might want but even then it says for something like a _+2 long sword_ you might have to travel to a large city that deals in _rare items_ (emphasis mine), or find someone willing to make the trip, or commission it.

All in all, I'd prefer the (at last) stated ability to simply commission or maybe outright purchase such items than treating every +1 hunk of tin like a king's ransom, or having 
'DM advice' such as suggesting that pretty much every attempt at magic item purchase lead to fraud.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The only magical items mentioned in the PHB equipment lists are Holy Water and the Everburning Torch, both of which are the absolute simplest items to make without an XP cost.




Your PHB doesn't list scroll and potion costs?  Did they drop that with 3.5?



> Now there is the phrase about you generally being able to find anything under 3000gp that you might want but even then it says for something like a _+2 long sword_ you might have to travel to a large city that deals in _rare items_ (emphasis mine), or find someone willing to make the trip, or commission it.




The rules dealing with what can be purchased in a community in the DMG are also a fairly obvious place to look.

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In 3e, what is the standard combat round like?
> 
> ...
> 
> For my money, something that is streamlined goes faster.  3e is elegant (unified mechanic) but not streamlined.




Your 3E combats are very unlike mine. I guess your 1E/2E combats were also unlike mine.

But, yes, 3E combat rounds are longer. I don't think that means they're less streamlined, though. You can do more in a 3E combat round than you could in a 2E combat round, so they're going to be longer.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The rules dealing with what can be purchased in a community in the DMG are also a fairly obvious place to look.




There are a lot of things wrong with those equasions... If anything in 3E should have been changed for 3.5, that's it. What were they thinking???

On a side note you can make a pretty wonderous magic shop. Well, weirder stuff is easier in Planescape, so I might be biased. But, its still one of the more interesting and strange places the PCs frequent and has turned into a place to go for more than just magic items.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Your 3E combats are very unlike mine. I guess your 1E/2E combats were also unlike mine.




It seems likely.    



> But, yes, 3E combat rounds are longer. I don't think that means they're less streamlined, though. You can do more in a 3E combat round than you could in a 2E combat round, so they're going to be longer.




It seems to me that it isn't what you can do that makes the round take so long, but figuring out what to do.  From my perspective as DM, I can move the opponents as fast as ever.  I either have notes as to what they will do, or I don't care if their actions are sub-optimal.  I want to keep the game flowing.

From the PC side of the table, though, sub-optimal actions are potentially lethal actions.  So, from that plethora of choices, what do you choose to do?  Moreover, although the system is designed to allow the PCs to perform cool stunts, all too often all that hemming and hawing about what to do ends up with the exact same set of combat actions that happened the round before.

I really need to inject an extra helping of Iron Heroes into the combat rules at my table.  At least that way, for the time spent, there'll be more bang for the buck.  Otherwise, thus far, swashbuckling cards and action points seem to be the best bet.



> There are a lot of things wrong with those equasions... If anything in 3E should have been changed for 3.5, that's it. What were they thinking???




Here we agree.    



> On a side note you can make a pretty wonderous magic shop. Well, weirder stuff is easier in Planescape, so I might be biased. But, its still one of the more interesting and strange places the PCs frequent and has turned into a place to go for more than just magic items.




Again, I agree that it can be done.  H.G. Wells wrote a story or two, for example, about magic shops that were pretty well done.  But I also think it most often is not done well.  Nor is a magic shop the kind of thing that works well in every setting.  IMHO, and IME, the magic shop hurts more games than it helps (but those that it helps can be spectacular).

RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It seems to me that it isn't what you can do that makes the round take so long, but figuring out what to do.




I can go along with that.



> I really need to inject an extra helping of Iron Heroes into the combat rules at my table.  At least that way, for the time spent, there'll be more bang for the buck.




I've been meaning to put combat challenges and such into my games. Iron Heroes also streamlined AoO for the most part, except for that weird movement thing it has going on, which, IMO, reintroduces the complexity right back in. 



> Here we agree.




Uh oh...



> Again, I agree that it can be done.




Darnit! Finding commong ground. Quick, gotta say something controversial... um... 



> Of course not. But the point is that leveling, in and of itself, isn't a good thing either.




Yes it is!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2006)

ThirdWizard,

Reading through our posts, I think that we largely agree on the changes that 3.X has made to the combat system; what we disagree on is what "streamlined" means in this context.   

BTW, I don't disagree just to be disagreeable.      Look at the current thread about Tomb of Horrors and whether or not it is an example of good module design.  What I enjoyed about that module is steeped in nostalgia, but even then I wouldn't have called it good design.  It isn't simply a knee-jerk reaction.....

......unless you bring pokemounts into it......


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 26, 2006)

OP chiming in here again. I actually think this has been a very enlightening discussion.

I guess I really am after the sense of wonder again. With the players, of course, that naturally fades the more experience they get with the game. In my opinion, there are two ways to do this:

1. Constantly introduce "new and nifty" magic, in an attempt to bring back that sense of wonder. After a while, this would lead to a game with Arcane Magic, Divine Magic, Psionic Magic, and magic with all kinds of other premises like soul-magic, invocations, musical magic, truename magic, pact magic...oh, wait...

2. Have the inhabitants of the game world reflect an attitude. IF the players are roleplaying, they will naturally reflect the attitudes of the people in the setting. There was a great comment in one of the 2e books that went something like this...

"Make your mundanes mundane. If all of the peasants in the world treat the fantastical as everyday, your players become much less important. Consider the following:

'Dang dragon's in the back yard again Ma! Go call us an adventurer? Do it meself? Listen woman, I'm busy sorting spell components for market, I can't be bothered!'

This naturally makes the PCs more important in the game world as well as preventing the players from treating magic as if it's humdrum."


Now, I admit that _Eberron_ (for example) has done a great job of preserving the delicate balancing act between making the game's assumptions make sense and still keeping the adventurers important. This is, basically, a demographic trick that Keith pulled off. If members of the adventuring classes are rare, then they're more important - especially as they become higher level. But there will probably be enough of them that they have an impact on society at large - often an impact disproportionate to their numbers. First level characters are common enough that first-level spells should be common. That IS logical. But the question is, are 5th-level characters that common? If not, then spells like invisibility may not be EITHER.

I've thought about introducing a campaign-specific houserule that characters who retire from active adventuring convert levels to an NPC class at the rate of 1 level every x years. Basically, you don't get to retire as a 5th level wizard and STAY a 5th level wizard without working at it. The conversion rate would vary from campaign to campaign.

One "magic as commodity" problem that's unique to 3e is: wands. In 3e, a character can use a wand for any spell ON their spell list. That means that a ranger can carry (and use!) a wand of "cure light wounds" or any other spell from 1st-level on. They don't have to wait to be spellcasters to BE spellcasters. That's something new.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jun 27, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> One "magic as commodity" problem that's unique to 3e is: wands. In 3e, a character can use a wand for any spell ON their spell list. That means that a ranger can carry (and use!) a wand of "cure light wounds" or any other spell from 1st-level on. They don't have to wait to be spellcasters to BE spellcasters. That's something new.




And it's great... but it's not new. 

Consider 2ed; back when wands had command words, certain classes could use certain wands without needing to be a spellcaster so long as they knew the command word.  I recall mention of a command word option in the RAW somrwhere, but I digress...

Wands are meant to be spell batteries for spellcasters... and only spellcasters can make and use them (with exceptions; wait for it).  The Fighter and Barbarian get the shaft in this respect (as IMO any Rogue worth their salt has Use Magic Device maxed out and at least a low-powered _cloak of charisma_), so if said Fighter or Barbarian happens across a wand of something-or-other... they can't use it, but someone else can.  Why NOT sell it?

Granted, by today's standards, just because I find a gun or knife on the street doesn't mean I'm going to pawn it off to any regular Joe... but there ARE pawn shops that take licensed firearms. 

I guess it's that I don't see wands as a "problem" so much as a resource.  Players who want the magic items they want can and will go through the effort to create them themselves, find someone who has one they're not using, or go kick in some monster lairs until the DM gives them what they want.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 27, 2006)

Specifically about Ptolus and Eberron, I don't think their treatment of magic is going against any Sense of Wonder per se. That's a bit like saying Harry Potter's treatment of magic goes against the SoW one may feel when talking about Witches and Wizards. I don't think so: it's just a different approach.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 27, 2006)

I think Iron Heroes does a good job at "chancy, dangerous" magic, which is different from the "magic is as controllable and common as electricity" model.

I think I will do a C&C game where, Rifts-like, the medieval humans have been transported to a world, as have other fantasy races from various worlds, say 100 years ago.  And magic was gone from the land for millenia but now is beginning to return, because the dragons are waking up...

That might capture some of what I am after.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 27, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Check out the 2e PHB.




Had to wait on a friend to drop me the XP charts from 2E as my book is safely hidden away where THAC0 will never hurt anyone again *grin*  For those not paying attention, I showed that in 1E Wizards cost more XP to level, contradicting Hussar, who had said that they started taking off from eveeryone else at later levels, leveling quicker and the like.

Here's the 2E XP charts.  Wizards are the most expensive as they always have been.  Well, until the 3E unified XP chart.

Fighter: top: 20  XP needed: 3 million XP/level above: 250k
note:  Warrior includes Fighter, Paladin, Ranger.
Paladins and rangers require 3,600,000 for level 20, and 200k for each level
beyond.

Priest (cleric): Top: 20  XP needed: 2,700,000  XP/level above: 225k
Priest (druid):  Top: 20  XP needed: 2,000,000  XP/level above: 500k
note: druids are funky.  Level 17 is reached through different methods by
heirophants (former Grand Druids who stepped down).

Rogue: Top: 20  XP needed: 2,200,000  XP/level above: 220,000

Wizard: top: 20  XP  needed: 3,750,000  XP/level above: 375k

Unless by "top" you mean the plateau at  which all level start costing the
same.  In that case:

Fighter: Level 9 (250k total, all future levels cost 250k)
Paladin/Ranger: Level 9 (300k total, all future levels cost 300k)
Cleric: Level 9 (225k total, all future levels cost 225k)
Druid: Irregular as all get out.
Rogue: Level 11 (220k total, all future levels cost 220k)
Wizard: Level 11 (375k total, all future levels cost 375k)


Thanks for directing meto somewhere else you're wrong about the XP tables Hussar


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 27, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We could feed everyone on earth.  We could house everyone.  We could control our population and save our environment.
> 
> Please explain the difference.




I could explain the difference in the way I would prefer but it involves the verboten "politics" to be introduced to the board. 

For one thing, there's a lot less WORK and hasle involved when you literally just snap your fingers and X, Y and Z are all done.  The simple answer is that you are looking at things on a grand scale and I was talking of smaller scales.  You could use clerics to generate lots of food and water and feed everyone.  Send them around healing and curing everyone.  Bunch of wizards casting Wall of stone 4 times, put a thatch roof on and soon a whole village has a house.  Repeat a million or so times.  

To control the population you either need to sterilize people en masse or else slaughter them after they're already breathing.  Unless we come up with a macrobe that eats pollution (thanks Aberrant!) I don't see us saving the environment.

It is a far far simpler thing to have a fantasy kingdom, connected by crystal balls, a lightning rail, air ships etc than those of us in the real world getting our governments to solve the problems you list.  On the local level, this is as simple as a mayor getting a wizard to make a decanter of endless water to irrigate the arid land near the city to make it into workable farm land.  Getting contiunual light street lights made.  Not earth shattering (or saving) events, just conveniences and general life improvements.

Thanks for keeping the arguement grounded in its original intentions and not distorting one side completely tho.


On a different note,



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "True. But that doesn't mean that making magic items a valuable commodity should be hard-wired into the game. "




Because magic items ARE a valuable commodity, someone is going to want to make a dime off them somewhere.  It's human nature.  Dwarven nature surely   You also bemoan that they made the ideas meet the rules and not the otehr way around. Well considering when they made 3E they wanted to put out the game they felt was most like what was being played by a large majority.  This meant common house rules all became standard.  Others just got listed as new options.  I'm betting that, since ENWorld is rather atypical apparently for D&D gamers, many more people out there responded that they have an enjoy magic shops.

The people spoke.  The designers listened.  Now go houserule to your heart's content, but the game was made this way b/c that was the perception of what the gaming community WANTED.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 27, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Here's the 2E XP charts.  Wizards are the most expensive as they always have been.  Well, until the 3E unified XP chart.




Sort of. Check out the middle levels.

Fighter/Wizard 6th level: 32,000/40,000
Fighter/Wizard 7th level: 64,000/60,000
Fighter/Wizard 8th level: 125,000/90,000
Fighter/Wizard 9th level: 250,000/135,000
Fighter/Wizard 10th level: 500,000/250,000
Fighter/Wizard 11th level: 750,000/375,000
Fighter/Wizard 12th level: 1,000,000/750,000
Fighter/Wizard 13th level: 1,250,000/1,125,000
Fighter/Wizard 14th level: 1,500,000/1,500,000
Fighter/Wizard 15th level: 1,750,000/1,875,000

Which is _weird_. For a while the only ones better off than the wizard are druids and rogues.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2006)

Thank you Third Wizard.  I knew that I wasn't entirely wrong on this.   Sorry, I wasn't entirely accurate, but, for the "sweet spot" xp, wizard's absolutely glisten.

I really should actually break out books before opening my mouth though.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 27, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Players can't go around buying magic items, they are too rare and valuable.  Players can sell magic items, but only get so much because "they aren't worth it."  That broke a lot of people's ability to believe a setting.



Why should it break suspension of disbelief that a quasi-medieval economy would have inefficiencies in the market for very, very expensive goods with very, very specific uses, which are very, very expensive to identify/verify?


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 27, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Sort of. Check out the middle levels.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Which is _weird_. For a while the only ones better off than the wizard are druids and rogues.




As I said, a friend looked up those tables for me.  From the way you had worded it sounded like the eventually outpacing everyone was towards the end, not middle.  My only guess is a way to bribe people to play mages, kinda like the bribing of people for clerics in 3E.  You'll have more fighters than anyone esle probably, so make them harder to level.  Make wizard easy...and ofcourse, the very flexible thief should just be cheap b/c everyone likes it and it can fill many holes.  Adjustable thief skills were a very nice creation tho.  As we've already seen, I'm a big fan of things making sense.


----------



## Starman (Jun 27, 2006)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Why should it break suspension of disbelief that a quasi-medieval economy would have inefficiencies in the market for very, very expensive goods with very, very specific uses, which are very, very expensive to identify/verify?




You don't see the discrepancy in allowing characters to sell magic items with no problems, but never being able to buy any?


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 27, 2006)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Why should it break suspension of disbelief that a quasi-medieval economy would have inefficiencies in the market for very, very expensive goods with very, very specific uses, which are very, very expensive to identify/verify?




Very specific uses?  The use of a +5 Vorpal Longsword is the same use as a regular Longsword, just much moreso.  A Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds or Remove Disease is quite clear in it's use.  A Bag of Holding or Immovable Rod is also quite clear in what it does.  An Everburning Torch is usable to all as well.  There are some magic items that are only usable to a small handful of people, like wands, but a +1 adamantine dagger is useful to just about anybody (even if as a tool instead of a weapon, it is incredibly sharp and durable after all).  

The level of technology and civilization in D&D is much closer to the renaissance than medieval anyway (unless your campaign doesn't have things like plate mail), and by then there was merchant companies (chartered trading companies by the mid 1500's easily), the Knights Templar had early banking across all of Europe and much of the Middle East by the 1300's, and they understood the concepts of interest and stock trading quite well.  It certainly wasn't Wall Street, but it wasn't all bartering with chickens and cows either.

A large and respected religious order, or a wealthy company started by a powerful noble with a royal charter could hire some novice wizards to Identify magic items, put them in sealed containers labelled with what they are, the seal vouching for what they are and do, and begin to trade in them.  They'd be sold to powerful nobles, other religious orders, the crowns of various kingdoms, wealthy mercenary companies, and of course adventurers.  Adventurers aren't the only people running around with lots of money, they are just the ones the story tends to focus on.


----------



## rounser (Jun 27, 2006)

> B/c a world where magic exists but they haven't taken advantage of it to have say....a decanter of endless water helping to irrigate dry lands or continual light to keep teh streets safe at night, etc etc. just doesn't make SENSE! This is a matter of internal consistency.



As a one-off hook for an adventure (i.e. an enterprising guild or mage is setting up continual light streetlamps, a druid trying to reclaim a desert with his decanter) - that is, a mcguffin - fine.  As an integrated part of society - nuh uh.  There's just too much at stake to make these things more than a novelty to the average peasant, IMO.  What's at stake is contrast; if the mundane becomes magical, then the magic becomes mundane.

And IMO, using magic in an industrial way always comes at a price.  Those undead make great reapers during harvest, until a necromancer cult got involved and used them to destroy the town, or the locals became infected with some undead rot or something.  That decanter was very useful for years, but one day water elementals began coming out of it and destroyed all the reclaimed woodland.  Residual magic from constant use of those streetlamps opened a gate to the positive material plane etc.  This may seem unsporting, but you're doing this to NPCs, so you don't have to play fair when _they_ try to apply magic to industry.  If the PCs try it, well, they can try and change the world if they like, that's part of what they're there for.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 27, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> As I said, a friend looked up those tables for me.  From the way you had worded it sounded like the eventually outpacing everyone was towards the end, not middle.  My only guess is a way to bribe people to play mages, kinda like the bribing of people for clerics in 3E.  You'll have more fighters than anyone esle probably, so make them harder to level.



Except, of course, that wizards start getting XP breaks just when they're outpacing the other party members in key skills like damage output, mobility, and bypassing obstacles. I never liked the 7th/8th-level break.

Also, keep in mind that in 1e parties using anything other than roll 3d6 six times, fighters weren't quite so attractive. I'd take a ranger every time. Fighters were the necessary response to the usually not-so-high stat bonuses featured in 1e AD&D; the only survivable class if you had mediocre stats.

The really whacked-out class, though, is the druid. There's a great article in Dragon 119 that talks about how much deadlier the druid is than the cleric, and then starts figuring in animal companions. I ran one after reading that just as an experiment in powergaming.


----------



## Starman (Jun 27, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> And IMO, using magic in an industrial way always comes at a price.  Those undead make great reapers during harvest, until a necromancer cult got involved and used them to destroy the town, or the locals became infected with some undead rot or something.  That decanter was very useful for years, but one day water elementals began coming out of it and destroyed all the reclaimed woodland.  Residual magic from constant use of those streetlamps opened a gate to the positive material plane etc.  This may seem unsporting, but you're doing this to NPCs, so you don't have to play fair when _they_ try to apply magic to industry.  If the PCs try it, well, they can try and change the world if they like, that's part of what they're there for.




Those sound like some great adventure hooks to me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Because magic items ARE a valuable commodity, someone is going to want to make a dime off them somewhere.  It's human nature.




I give you the Superman paradox:  You, Mr. Kent, have the powers of Superman.  You can choose to retain those powers for yourself, doing what good you can when you can do it, or you can choose to share those powers with everyone.  In other words, one Superman who decides how those powers are used (you) or a world of Supermen where anyone can use those powers how they wish.  What do you choose?



> The people spoke.  The designers listened.  Now go houserule to your heart's content, but the game was made this way b/c that was the perception of what the gaming community WANTED.




Yeah, funny thing about people, though.  They keep speaking.  This edition is not "for all time" and the next might be radically different.  Also, statistically, a representative sample does not always give proper representation.  The people WotC spoke to might not represent the views of the majority.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

Starman said:
			
		

> You don't see the discrepancy in allowing characters to sell magic items with no problems, but never being able to buy any?




If the magic items are uncovered from lost civilizations by the characters, they can sell them because they have an excess and there is a market demand.  However, in 1e, where creation is difficult, there is a general market demand but not an excess of product.

As the farmer only sells produce beyond what he and his family need, the average guy with a magic sword doesn't have a spare in his closet to sell.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> And IMO, using magic in an industrial way always comes at a price.  Those undead make great reapers during harvest, until a necromancer cult got involved and used them to destroy the town, or the locals became infected with some undead rot or something.  That decanter was very useful for years, but one day water elementals began coming out of it and destroyed all the reclaimed woodland.  Residual magic from constant use of those streetlamps opened a gate to the positive material plane etc.  This may seem unsporting, but you're doing this to NPCs, so you don't have to play fair when _they_ try to apply magic to industry.  If the PCs try it, well, they can try and change the world if they like, that's part of what they're there for.





I've heard that there's a much higher rate of cancer in areas with continual light street lamps.  It's all statistics, and there's been no causitive agent discovered yet, but I wouldn't raise my kids near those things.


----------



## Numion (Jun 27, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I've heard that there's a much higher rate of cancer in areas with continual light street lamps.  It's all statistics, and there's been no causitive agent discovered yet, but I wouldn't raise my kids near those things.




Yup, and on days of higher ice cream consumption drowning deaths are also up. Damned if I would feed ice cream to my children


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> For one thing, there's a lot less WORK and hasle involved when you literally just snap your fingers and X, Y and Z are all done.  The simple answer is that you are looking at things on a grand scale and I was talking of smaller scales.  You could use clerics to generate lots of food and water and feed everyone.  Send them around healing and curing everyone.  Bunch of wizards casting Wall of stone 4 times, put a thatch roof on and soon a whole village has a house.  Repeat a million or so times.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Thanks for keeping the arguement grounded in its original intentions and not distorting one side completely tho.




Your sense of human nature and my sense of human nature are obviously very different.    

Those wizards making your houses presumably worked hard to be able to cast those spells.  Who organizes them, and who pays them?  Likewise the clerics.  Does their religion make them the soupkitchen of the world, or do they demand something for their good services?  What happens to the people who make their living off the land?  With these clerics feeding everyone, don't the farmers discover that they're making less money?  Or none?  Even though it might be better for everyone in the long term, it would be worse for a lot of people in the short term, and there would be an uprising.

To be even more cynical, wouldn't curing everyone of Devil Rot prevent me from making even more money selling palliatives?  And, if my primary belief is that we should eschew the things of material existence and concentrate on worship and the afterlife (as the Roman Catholic Church taught in the Middle Ages, and still teaches to a degree), what would my motive be to improve the things of this world?

What you are suggesting, in effect, is that people with power will share that power for money, as opposed to using that power to extort money.  From the simplest labor negotiation to international politics, I would suggest that history teaches the opposite.  Those with power use their power to extort cheaper labor, skim off the top of the results of labor, and generally increase their power.  Where they invest, they invest in such a way that it does not compromise their power base (unless they are foolish, which obviously does happen).  People with power do not often willingly dilute their power.

A simple example can be found by examining the PCs in your own campaign world.  Often enough, they might have a wonderful brilliant idea for generating money outside the dungeon, but how often are these ideas implimented?  And, if they are, do the logical results follow?

If I have two Vorpal swords, and I am fighting a constant battle against the Orcs of Bloody Hollow, and I know that the orcs raid the town of Pitiful Defense thrice daily, I _could_ give one of those vorpal blades to the town.  But then, when the orcs trash the town and take the blade, I end up hoist on my own petard.  So I don't do it.  I don't want that power in hands I cannot control.

Similarly, if I go out of my way to create a situation where I have many powerful spellcasters operating in the area I live in, how long will it be before I work for them, instead of the other way around?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Yup, and on days of higher ice cream consumption drowning deaths are also up. Damned if I would feed ice cream to my children


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

As for Continual Light, a good analogue would be the light bulb.  Even though invented a good deal earlier, the light bulb didn't make any significant inroads against gas lighting until after the Chicago World's Fair, which was lit by electricity not because of the efficiency, but in order to show off American invention.

Directly following the World's Fair, of course, the advantages of cheap electric lighting became obvious -- to factory owners.  Electric light meant shift work.  Time that normally belonged to the family became time that belonged to the employer.  Because shift work meant more people employed, unemployment went down....and with it wages.  Suddenly, you had to work more in order to get what you got before.

Follow the history of the light bulb with your Continual Light devises, and I'd agree that you've made a world that reacts like the real world.  Simply claim that mages work for the benefit of all, and I gotta kinda sorta disagree.

RC


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 30, 2006)

*hums* I'm a munckin and I'm okay, I sleep all night and fight monsters all day!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Also, statistically, a representative sample does not always give proper representation.




Technically, a representative sample is, by definition, representative of the population.  There are many ways to get a sample that is not representative, but if it is representative, you're good to go.

Of course, one never knows with absolute certainty that the sample was representative, unless the sample includes the whole population.  But there are decent ways to estimate the error.  And no statistician worth the name ever says the work provides certainty.



> The people WotC spoke to might not represent the views of the majority.




True, but WotC was (and still is) the only interested entity with the resources to manage even a decent attempt at finding a representative sample.  They may not know the truth, but they have the stuff for the best guesses.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 30, 2006)

All hail the munckin king!  That's me!


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2006)

Well, the purchase and sale of magic items is most certainly historically accurate.  Look at the vast amount of money that was made by certain groups in the Middle Ages pedalling relics.  To the point where some relics were so holy that touching the relic to another item made that item holy as well.

Now, change that a bit, from holy to magical and you have groups making themselves fantastically wealthy in the buying, selling and trading of items.  Items robbed from ancient civilizations no less as well.  

Now, as far as continual light goes, I see it this way.  The ruler of a city goes to the priesthood and says, "Hey, you see that really sweet hill overlooking the bay?  Wouldn't your new temple look great up there?  Wouldn't it also be great if all the streets leading to that temple were lit up nice and bright at night?"

Poof, instant lighting for my city.


----------



## Victim (Jun 30, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As for Continual Light, a good analogue would be the light bulb.  Even though invented a good deal earlier, the light bulb didn't make any significant inroads against gas lighting until after the Chicago World's Fair, which was lit by electricity not because of the efficiency, but in order to show off American invention.
> 
> Directly following the World's Fair, of course, the advantages of cheap electric lighting became obvious -- to factory owners.  Electric light meant shift work.  Time that normally belonged to the family became time that belonged to the employer.  Because shift work meant more people employed, unemployment went down....and with it wages.  Suddenly, you had to work more in order to get what you got before.
> 
> ...




The problem is that Continual Light isn't exactly new development by default.  If the spell was invented recently - and long lived races like elves might have strange definitions of recently, then, yeah, it doesn't follow that it will fully be applied.  But most DnD settings have stuff that's been around millenia.  Since Continual Light has been around ages, those changes should have started happening ages ago.  

You could argue that, like Archimede's inventions, some spells or items were underutilized for long periods of time because of cheaper alternatives.  But that would apply very much on a case by case basis.  Considering the fire hazards of mundane lights, I think that it'd be hard to find cheaper substitutes for magic lighting.

Mages don't need to be working for the benefit of all; they just need to work for themselves. The early arcane entreprenuers could probably make a killing selling (or even better, leasing, since the spells are permanent) magic lights.


----------



## Numion (Jun 30, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> Mages don't need to be working for the benefit of all; they just need to work for themselves. The early arcane entreprenuers could probably make a killing selling (or even better, leasing, since the spells are permanent) magic lights.




Light is a good example because it is so important. When they sent computers to a remote village in africe they noticed that the main use was for a blank (white) screen to provide illumination, not any sort of computation (maybe except for 419s   )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 30, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> The problem is that Continual Light isn't exactly new development by default.  If the spell was invented recently - and long lived races like elves might have strange definitions of recently, then, yeah, it doesn't follow that it will fully be applied.  But most DnD settings have stuff that's been around millenia.  Since Continual Light has been around ages, those changes should have started happening ages ago.




How long a particular spell has been around is a world decision, not something carved in stone.  But, you are right -- you can have a world where Continual Light is used as you suggest.  (This world would have, probably, it's own problems, if you assume that magical energy can be converted to food energy ala the disenchanter.....magiovoures will multiply.  I imagine little magic-eating cockroaches infesting a city.....)  I think that Eberron does a good job of integrating magic with a more technologically focused society.

The point was not that magic _cannot_ be used this way; the point is that magic _does not have to be_ used this way in order to maintain suspension of disbelief.  Moreover, there is not only a social power disparity, but also a _real_ power disparity, built into D&D from the begining.  If you can cast Wall of Stone, you can also cast Charm Person.  Which one makes you rich faster?

Another thought:  In the real Middle Ages, it was very common to limit the number of fighting men your vassals had on call.  Doing otherwise could foolishly result in their not being your vassals anymore.  I would imagine that, in a real D&D world, high-level characters would make some effort to control who was coming up through the ranks in their area.  I doubt that anyone who didn't directly benefit from it would see a union of spellcasters as a good thing.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 30, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Technically, a representative sample is, by definition, representative of the population.  There are many ways to get a sample that is not representative, but if it is representative, you're good to go.




Yes, but when one uses "representative sampling", that the sampling is representative requires assumptions that may not be true.  The term "representative sampling" applies to the method, not only to how well you use it.    

But, I am absolutely certain that you knew that when you wrote what you did.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 30, 2006)

Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, XP! XP! Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, XP! XP! 

Sorry I'm having too much fun.


----------



## rounser (Jul 1, 2006)

> Poof, instant lighting for my city.



And you've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand.  Spells like _invisibility_ and _charm person_ would turn society upside down if used by the unscrupulous and their implications truly explored - let alone _fireball_. Absolute chaos, overnight.  You're only picking on _continual light_ because it's permanent.  In the pursuit of realism, you've opened a pandora's box, and are then pretending you've shut it after only letting a little of the evils out.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Jul 1, 2006)

I don't think I'm following you properly, here...  You mean something like this?

The local mayor says to the schemeing wizard, "How cool would it be to have your fancy wizard's tower up on that hill over there?  And, while I'm thinking about it, how cool would it be if Bob, over there, if he and his family just burst into flames?"  And POOF political rivalry solved!

Is that what you're suggesting would bring about total chaos?  Because that sort of thing happens all the time.

Later
silver


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2006)

> And you've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. Spells like invisibility and charm person would turn society upside down if used by the unscrupulous and their implications truly explored - let alone fireball. Absolute chaos, overnight. You're only picking on continual light because it's permanent. In the pursuit of realism, you've opened a pandora's box, and are then pretending you've shut it after only letting a little of the evils out.




You mean that individuals with power and lack of scruples can disrupt society?  Ok.  I can agree with that.  However, those same individuals can also bring about great things as well.  

Both invisibility and charm person are fairly short duration spells, but, I agree, they could have huge repercussions.  So, why not develop a campaign setting that explores those instead of just hand waving them and saying, "Oh, well, they don't really matter?"  How is it better to ignore the great gaping plot holes than to at least try to spackle them over?

In real life there are individuals who are capable of massive destruction that we allow to operate every day.  Construction workers, heavy machinery operators, military personel.  All could cause incredible damage if they chose to.  Is it really so unbelievable that you could integrate magic-users into society?

And, isn't it very arbitrary to assume a humanocentric world?  Why would elves be the slightest bit bothered by magic?  Or any of the more magical races?  Why wouldn't the town revere it's town wizard when he protects them from that marauding manticore?

The assumption that all magic should be feared and hated is a very strange thing to me.  In a world where fantastic creatures exist, and a LOT of them exist, why would people suddenly get all wigged out because Bob can fly?


----------



## rounser (Jul 1, 2006)

> So, why not develop a campaign setting that explores those instead of just hand waving them and saying, "Oh, well, they don't really matter?" How is it better to ignore the great gaping plot holes than to at least try to spackle them over?



Because you're not "spackling" by doing this - you're emphasising weak points, and by doing this all the assumptions that the implied setting makes fall apart.  Instead of D&D being a rough simulation of a pseudomedieval swords & sorcery fantasy world, it becomes what is actually being simulated - the setting equivalent of flavour serving the rules (rather than the other way around as it should be).  Some people see no problem with this, but to me it's the game disappearing up it's own rear end.  If you can't see why this is a bad thing, then Eberron and Ptolus were probably made with you in mind.

Instead of brushing D&D's deficits as a fantasy world ruleset under the carpet, you put them up on a pedestal and with a big sign pointing to them in neon saying "Hey, look at this!"  If you don't value genre conventions, there's probably no problem with doing so, but given that genre conventions are half of what D&D is, I think it harms the game.  As I've said earlier in the thread, geeks love to analyse systems, so to us it's a natural thing to attempt to extend the implications of D&D's ruleset to it's logical conclusions, whilst ignoring that D&D is the attempt at simulation, not what is being simulated....and as I've also said earlier in this thread, geeks also don't think of the consequences of deconstructing fantasy (which is destroyed in the process of analysis).

Handwaving is the lesser evil, then, although I know it makes you feel uncomfortable.  It's not logical enough, I know, but the logical, seemingly natural and intuitive alternative is far worse IMO.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Because you're not "spackling" by doing this - you're emphasising weak points, and by doing this all the assumptions that the implied setting makes fall apart.  Instead of D&D being a rough simulation of a pseudomedieval swords & sorcery fantasy world, it becomes what is actually being simulated - the setting equivalent of flavour serving the rules (rather than the other way around as it should be).  Some people see no problem with this, but to me it's the game disappearing up it's own rear end.  If you can't see why this is a bad thing, then Eberron and Ptolus were probably made with you in mind.
> 
> Instead of brushing D&D's deficits as a fantasy world ruleset under the carpet, you put them up on a pedestal and with a big sign pointing to them in neon saying "Hey, look at this!"  If you don't value genre conventions, there's probably no problem with doing so, but given that genre conventions are half of what D&D is, I think it harms the game.  As I've said earlier in the thread, geeks love to analyse systems, so to us it's a natural thing to attempt to extend the implications of D&D's ruleset to it's logical conclusions, whilst ignoring that D&D is the attempt at simulation, not what is being simulated....and as I've also said earlier in this thread, geeks also don't think of the consequences of deconstructing fantasy (which is destroyed in the process of analysis).
> 
> Handwaving is the lesser evil, then, although I know it makes you feel uncomfortable.  It's not logical enough, I know, but the logical, seemingly natural and intuitive alternative is far worse IMO.




Ok, I can appreciate that.  We're coming from opposite ends of the spectrum and we're unlikely to find a happy medium.    To me, the idea that there should be sacred fallacies that should never be talked about is silly.  If something doesn't make sense, then it should be changed.

This was the same problem I had with Star Trek.  Treknobabble can only take you so far before it becomes silly.  Now, as a passive observer of a TV show, my tollerance for this sort of thing is perhaps higher.  As an active participant in setting, however, if I can poke giant holes in the tapestry without any effort, then the tapestry is poorly made.

Perhaps that means that Ptolus and Eberron are better suited to me.  I certainly never bought into Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk for precisely that reason.  To me, fluff and crunch should walk hand in hand with neither subservient to the other.  If I make fluff that blatantly violates the crunch, then either I should change the fluff or change the crunch.  One or the other, I'm happy.  However, if you grossly violate crunch with fluff and make no attempt to change either one, then, to me, the setting falls apart.

Picking on continual light for a second.  The very first thing every group I ever played with did when they hit third level was get the cleric to cast as many continual lights as possible.  Two or three per PC at a minimum.  This was SOP in every group I played in.  

Why not?  If you don't want the players to do something, don't allow the rules that allow them to do it.  If the rules allow for a particular action, then you must accept that the players will take that action.  If you don't like it, change the rules.  Don't appeal to players to deliberately handicap themselves.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 1, 2006)

Munckin time! Do you know the Munckin man, the Munckin man, the munckin man? Do you know the munckin man that lives in D&D?

Yeah that's me.


----------



## rounser (Jul 1, 2006)

> To me, the idea that there should be sacred fallacies that should never be talked about is silly.



The silly is usually handwaved as part of suspension of disbelief, which is generally the only thing that makes the game float.  If you start challenging the idiosyncracies of genre, don't be surprised when you lose more than you gain....the reasons for D&D being the way it is serve story, genre convention and gameplay as much as (if not moreso) than logic.  If you want to sacrifice them for it, that's your devil's bargain to make....I'll have no part of it, industrial magic without consequences is for the birds, IMO.

I mean, what would Conan do?

"Conan, what is best in life?"
"_Continual light_ streetlamps, _magic carpet_ postal services, and water-elemental powered plumbing."
"Erm....nevermind."


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 1, 2006)

Send in the Sacred Fallacy! 

*second voice at a distance* Send in the Sacred Fallacy!

*third voice further in the distance* Send in the Sacred Fallacy!

*fourth voice way off in the distance* Send in the Sacred Fallacy!

*pause* 

Uhm sacred fallacy is dead.  But then so is Nitcheche so there.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2006)

> the reasons for D&D being the way it is serve story, genre convention and gameplay as much as (if not moreso) than logic.




See, to me, DnD has nothing to do with serving genre convention or story.  Then again, I don't game to make up stories.  Either as a DM or as a player.  To me, any story that comes out of the game after play is a bonus, but is certainly not the goal of any game.  The goal of a game is to play the game, not to expound on my personal abilities (or lack thereof) to write or create a story.

In other words, to me, the players combined with the DM create the story.  If the genre conventions are conflicting with the rules of the game, then one of them has to give way.  I never game with the mindset that I am trying to recreate a particular story.  I game to explore the aspects of a particular character thrust into a particular situation.  Genre convention is meaningless to me.

In other words, I couldn't care less how Tolkein, Howard, or R. L. Stein would play the game.  I only care how I play.  If the setting completely ignores aspects of the rules in the service of some sort of genre convention, then, well, I want no part of that.  The point of the game is to service the game.

Again, as I said before, if you don't want your players to do certain things, change the rules so they can't.  Don't leave the rules as is and then whine when the players don't follow along.  Complaining that DnD is high magic while allowing all character classes is pointless.  The second you have a wizard and a cleric in the party, your game is high magic.  Every encounter will feature magic.

If you want to get around that, then you have to change the RAW.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Thieves World, Conan, and other systems do EXACTLY that.  That's the point.  In order to recreate those genres, you MUST change the RAW.  

However, if you play RAW, don't expect the game to emulate any single genre.  That's silly.  RAW is meant to encompass many genres; so many that it is more or less genre neutral.  Or, rather, DnD has become a separate genre unto itself, distinct from most literary genre. 

While I completely agree that there needs to be suspension of disbelief, my mind shouldn't be forced to be so open that it falls out my left ear.  Six year olds should not be able to poke holes in the setting within the first ten minutes.  Granted, everyone has a different tollerance for this sort of thing so YMMV and all that.  However, I find the idea of completely ignoring what I see as very, very simple concepts and sweeping them under the carpet as almost insulting.  Yes, be willing to swallow some of the lies in the setting - that's cool.  But, don't expect me to see the setting and never question any elements ever.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 1, 2006)

Uhm Scarred Lands?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2006)

Well, apart from some of the mechanics issues I have with SL, let's face it, SL is not attempting to emulate any genre.  The various places are inspired by this or that, but, there is certainly no sense that I  should be emulating Tolkein or Leiber or any other author when playing SL.

Not that you can't take inspiration from those authors.  That's not true.  But, to try to emulate them with SL would be very, very difficult.  

SL is a high octane setting.  PC's and opponents are high powered - heck, just sitting back and praying can garner anyone a +3 bonus at any time.  I love the setting, but, it's a good example of where setting has left genre far behind.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 1, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> I mean, what would Conan do?
> 
> "Conan, what is best in life?"
> "_Continual light_ streetlamps, _magic carpet_ postal services, and water-elemental powered plumbing."
> "Erm....nevermind."




What would Conan do? Probably get his head blown off by the first _fly_ing, _greater invisible_ wizard he ran into. D&D doesn't do Conan very well (which is why a specific, very individual, version of the rules had to be created to run Conanesque games), or vice versa. Why? Because the genre conventions of REH's Conan stories aren't the same as D&D's.

As a number of people have pointed out, D&D is effectively a genre on its own and has its own set of genre conventions, many (if not most) of which don't really fit with the kind of genre conventions you seem to have in mind. Lots of people are running games where they do explore the repercussions of the D&D rules and its inherent conventions (and settings, like Eberron, are being written to facilitate such exploration), and to claim that's either impossible or will create huge problems is a little shortsighted, IMNSHO. Saying it simply doesn't suit your tastes, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable. We all game in different ways, and while D&D has trouble catering to every taste, it does cater to a very wide variety.


----------



## Guero Caballero (Jul 1, 2006)

A'koss said:
			
		

> D&D, whether you love it or not, is it's own unique brand of fantasy and is really only really suited to running "D&D" worlds.




How true.


----------



## rounser (Jul 1, 2006)

I think that you guys take a lot for granted about D&D's implied setting (everyone does, to the point of throwing tomatoes at it whilst ignoring all the work it does for them), and are into metagaming that I don't dig...but hey, bad wrong fun and all that.


----------



## Psion (Jul 1, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, apart from some of the mechanics issues I have with SL, let's face it, SL is not attempting to emulate any genre.  The various places are inspired by this or that, but, there is certainly no sense that I  should be emulating Tolkein or Leiber or any other author when playing SL.
> 
> Not that you can't take inspiration from those authors.  That's not true.  But, to try to emulate them with SL would be very, very difficult.




I think contemplating the exercise is ridiculous. Scarred Lands is a _setting_; what you emulate when you play scarred lands is... er, Scarred Lands. Scarred Lands has as much a right to exist as its own literary entity as Howard's Hyborea. It doesn't NEED to emulate anything any more than Tolkein NEEDS to emulate Leiber or vice versa. They are contemporaries and share inflluences, but they are their own entity.

Same goes for many D&D worlds, essentially. If you take the metasetting as is, it does carry with it certain assumptions. But you don't have to use the metasetting it its entirety and house ruling and tweaking D&D is an entirely normal function. There's a lot of latitude in what some might call a "D&D world".


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 1, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I give you the Superman paradox:  You, Mr. Kent, have the powers of Superman.  You can choose to retain those powers for yourself, doing what good you can when you can do it, or you can choose to share those powers with everyone.  In other words, one Superman who decides how those powers are used (you) or a world of Supermen where anyone can use those powers how they wish.  What do you choose?




Nice try, but Superman can't share his powers even if he wanted to.  Letting people who have the money for them have access to magic items or having cities with magic streetlights does not a superman make.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 1, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Your sense of human nature and my sense of human nature are obviously very different.
> 
> Those wizards making your houses presumably worked hard to be able to cast those spells.  Who organizes them, and who pays them?  Likewise the clerics.  Does their religion make them the soupkitchen of the world, or do they demand something for their good services?  What happens to the people who make their living off the land?  With these clerics feeding everyone, don't the farmers discover that they're making less money?  Or none?  Even though it might be better for everyone in the long term, it would be worse for a lot of people in the short term, and there would be an uprising.
> 
> ...




Actually you were talking about how, with technology now, we could use it to end all sorts of things and asked me to explain the difference.  I never said these things would all happen for free.  I said it was POSSIBLE to do X Y and Z with magic, which requires less actual work than the planning and actual labor of the modern world.

No I know that the reason everything isn't cured with magic or whatever is that people have their own agendas.  However, all technology is not horded for the future.  Telephones, cars, computers etc were all developed and produced and changed society as we know it.  WHy couldn't the same happen with magic technology?

Obviously if you don't like that kind of thing you're not going to do it, but I think a lot of people read that Dragon article I mentioned and thought it was cool or already had ideas of that.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 2, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> I think that you guys take a lot for granted about D&D's implied setting (everyone does, to the point of throwing tomatoes at it whilst ignoring all the work it does for them), and are into metagaming that I don't dig...but hey, bad wrong fun and all that.




Now this I am completely confused about.

Campaign design is 100% metagaming.  There is no game before the campaign.  Unless you have some method to organically grow a campaign from a seed where the campaign designs itself (something that would be extremely cool) there is no other way to design.  The very act of designing is metagaming, pure and simple.

Also, how is exploring the effects of mechanical aspects on a system wrong?  Even as a thought experiment?  To me, you can certainly handwave the obvious fallacies of genre - the popularity of various pseudo-medieval settings shows that - but, it is equally fine to actually take a look at what happens when you collapse those fallacies.  

Once again, just because it isn't to taste doesn't make it bad.  I don't like the idea of campaign settings that ignore certain things, but, that's just my taste.  I certainly don't conflate that with any sort of objective value judgement.


----------



## rounser (Jul 2, 2006)

> Once again, just because it isn't to taste doesn't make it bad.



I think you misinterpreted my meaning on the bad wrong fun reference; it was "whatever floats your boat", not the opposite.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2006)

Thinking about this a bit.

Looking back at older settings - Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and the like, it would seem that Rounser's approach to campaign creation has been the rule.  Of the older settings, only Mystara really took the existence of magic to heart, as well as Planescape and perhaps Spelljammer.

It has only been in the last few years that ensuring that the fluff matches the physics of the world as described by the mechanics.  Ptolus, Eberron, and the low magic worlds like Thieve's World and Conan have all begun to really wed fluff to crunch.  

Really, I think this is simply a maturation process in the genre.  Twenty five years ago, we watched Star Wars and thought it was great.  A few years ago, we had new Star Wars and it was generally panned.  Why?  Because consumers are an awful lot more particular now.  We've had a steady diet of fantasy, good and bad, for the past few decades and we are much better armed to make discriminating choices.

Compair Narnia to Harry Potter for a second.  In Narnia, the children enter a fantasy realm, but are always held separate from the magic.  Things are given to them, but, they never see how it works.  Harry Potter, OTOH, is right in the thick of things and is shown exactly how things work to the point where he can recreate it on his own.  This is a serious shift in the genre away from Gandalf where magic is unknowable, to, well, magic as science - repeatable and predictable to some degree.  

And, I don't think this is a bad thing.  We've ignored the fallacies of the genre for decades, IMNSHO, it's time to roll up our sleeves and really make a functioning fantasy world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Nice try, but Superman can't share his powers even if he wanted to.  Letting people who have the money for them have access to magic items or having cities with magic streetlights does not a superman make.




If you assume the RAW, there is no way to allow people to create those street lamps without allowing them a whole host of other powers.  "I ignore the thought experiment" is not an answer to the thought experiment.

Also, Superman can share his powers.  He has done so recently in All Star Superman.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Actually you were talking about how, with technology now, we could use it to end all sorts of things and asked me to explain the difference.  I never said these things would all happen for free.  I said it was POSSIBLE to do X Y and Z with magic, which requires less actual work than the planning and actual labor of the modern world.
> 
> No I know that the reason everything isn't cured with magic or whatever is that people have their own agendas.  However, all technology is not horded for the future.  Telephones, cars, computers etc were all developed and produced and changed society as we know it.  WHy couldn't the same happen with magic technology?
> 
> Obviously if you don't like that kind of thing you're not going to do it, but I think a lot of people read that Dragon article I mentioned and thought it was cool or already had ideas of that.




Having those ideas is fine; the idea that those ideas are somehow harder to poke holes in than worlds that do not use those ideas is not.  IMHO, the "technology" involved in D&D is not the spells per se, but the casters, and you have no way to control them once they are created.  If our telephones only did what they wanted to do when they thought it served their interests best, I think we'd have fewer telephones.

In other words, this is a change in style, not a "maturation".

RC


----------



## rounser (Jul 3, 2006)

> Really, I think this is simply a maturation process in the genre.



Whereas I think it's the game disappearing up it's own behind.

When this occurs in other realms such as music and literature, it seems to be a harbinger of decline - the genre eating it's own tail.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 3, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Whereas I think it's the game disappearing up it's own behind.
> 
> When this occurs in other realms such as music and literature, it seems to be a harbinger of decline - the genre eating it's own tail.



 Then it's a good thing that a lot of the aspects which make gaming are completely opposed to those of music and literature, isn't it?


----------



## Tiew (Jul 3, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Thinking about this a bit.
> Compair Narnia to Harry Potter for a second.  In Narnia, the children enter a fantasy realm, but are always held separate from the magic.  Things are given to them, but, they never see how it works.  Harry Potter, OTOH, is right in the thick of things and is shown exactly how things work to the point where he can recreate it on his own.  This is a serious shift in the genre away from Gandalf where magic is unknowable, to, well, magic as science - repeatable and predictable to some degree.
> 
> And, I don't think this is a bad thing.  We've ignored the fallacies of the genre for decades, IMNSHO, it's time to roll up our sleeves and really make a functioning fantasy world.




I read the Chronicles of Narnia about 10 times when I was a kid, so take this with a grain of salt.  While I love Harry Potter, I think it tends to fall appart compared to Narnia. I think Rowling just makes up whatever she thinks will be fun. While she does reconcile it and fit it together some it isn't very rigorous. With Harry Potter I have to remind myself not to ask too many questions while I'm reading it. With Narnia there is nothing to question since the magic is usually not controlled by humans. 

A better comparision might be Jack Vance or Fred Saberhagen to Lewis and Tolkien. The thing I like about Vance and Saberhagen is they rigorously define the rules of magic in their worlds and then work out stories sticking to them. While I really enjoy this because I like it when stories "make sense" I also have to observe that these authors are not as popular. I think the less scientific styles of fantasy might fill some sort of of human need to wonder at things we don't understand. The more scientific are probably better models for games. I like both kinds of fantasy worlds for different reasons, but I definitely wouldn't say that Narnia or LotR style fantasy is somehow inferior.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2006)

> With Harry Potter I have to remind myself not to ask too many questions while I'm reading it. With Narnia there is nothing to question since the magic is usually not controlled by humans.




And that's precisely my point.  DnD magic IS controlled by humans.  Quite literally.  It always has been as well.  The players and the DM have always been able to control magic in the game.  

To me it breaks suspension of disbelief to think that the PC's are THAT different from the mindset of NPC's.  Yes, a 12th level wizard is going to think differently than a 1st level commoner.  I do realize that, so please, no pedantry.  However, I find it difficult to believe that a 12th level PC wizard has a vastly different approach to the world than a 12th level NPC wizard.  



			
				RC said:
			
		

> If you assume the RAW, there is no way to allow people to create those street lamps without allowing them a whole host of other powers. "I ignore the thought experiment" is not an answer to the thought experiment.
> 
> Also, Superman can share his powers. He has done so recently in All Star Superman.




But, there is a way to allow people to create the streetlamps and not over run the world.  It's called the demographics system in the DMG.  By those rules, about 95% of the population is NPC classes.  Most of the rest are not true spell casters (I'm not counting rangers and paladins as spell casters) and the vast majority of all of them are 1-3rd level.  

Again, assuming a fairly standard population distribution, you don't have to worry about wizards running amok charming people.  There simply aren't enough of them to have such a huge impact with such short duration spells.  However, the existence of permanent duration, low level spells should have an impact on the setting.

Or, to put it in a real world perspective.  We allow people the capability to kill thousands every day.  It's called military training.  A single loaded F-18 could do massive damage to a city should the pilot choose to do so.  Yet, we frequently allow such people to fly loaded airplanes within our own national airspace on training missions.  And that's just a single example.  

And, yes, I see it as a maturation to examine a genre rather than simply sweeping it under the carpet.  At the beginning of DnD we had illogical dungeons with no ecology.  The Keep on the Borderland, as much as I love this module, makes about as much sense as a rubber hammer.  Groups of humanoids living together in peace and harmony despite the fact that they are all chaotic and hate each other.  Thus, later adventures included nods towards an ecology (certainly not a truly realistic one, but a nod nonetheless), and a nod towards actually thinking about why these various creatures live together.  

Compare KotB with Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and its vast store rooms and the like.  Or even the Slave Lords modules where it is explained why the Aspis are living where they are.


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> Then it's a good thing that a lot of the aspects which make gaming are completely opposed to those of music and literature, isn't it?



There are big differences between music and literature too, but a genre that starts eating itself is still one disappearing up it's own behind.  D&D isn't an exception.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 4, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> There are big differences between music and literature too, but a genre that starts eating itself is still one disappearing up it's own behind.  D&D isn't an exception.



 Well, you're the one defining it as a genre eating itself, so that's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Personally I think of it as a genre becoming more self-aware and self-reflexive. Which is true of a number of literary genres (can't speak of music, since I know crap all about it, but I do teach literature) that have survived quite well.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2006)

I'm confused.  Rounser, what is wrong with a genre becoming self-reflexive?  Shouldn't all genres self examine at some point in their existence?  We've had thirty years of DnD as a genre, pretty much ignoring the points brought up here.  How much longer should we continue to ignore the elephant in the corner?


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> Which is true of a number of literary genres (can't speak of music, since I know crap all about it, but I do teach literature) that have survived quite well.



Yes, I think your choice of the word "survived" is appropriate.

D&D doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Despite what some folks are saying in this thread, it reflects - and yes, to a certain extent redefines - the same swords & sorcery fantasy genres found in novels and (to a much lesser extent) films, and the mythology that the S&S genre relies upon for "mythic resonance".  One of D&D's core strengths is that to a certain extent it does reflect this pulp fantasy S&S genre, and I think it can be attributed to much of it's success.  If D&D begins to reflect nothing but itself, which disappearing up it's own behind implies by using it's own idiosyncracies and artefacts as a model to develop further idiosyncracies and artefacts, one of the cornerstones that it was based on erodes away, and the connections to the novels and mythology become further abstracted.  

To a certain extent this is inevitable (all games seem to have artefacts - compromises of what they're modelling so that they work as a game), but to emphasise them and embrace them such that the game becomes a model for the world is perverse, and enters Order of the Stick territory (and although that might sound cool to some, think on what makes OotS poking fun at D&D so funny).  To a certain extent this has already happened (e.g. where do you find clerics but in D&D), but I unlike you I don't see this as a good thing.

To me, the point at which the simulation defines what is being simulated isn't maturation, but rather losing the plot.


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> I'm confused.



Again?  Really?  I suspect that you just disagree, and by saying you're confused you're trying to imply that my argument makes no sense.  Whatever.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 4, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> To a certain extent this has already happened (e.g. where do you find clerics but in D&D), but I unlike you I don't see this as a good thing.
> 
> To me, the point at which the simulation defines what is being simulated isn't maturation, but rather losing the plot.




I guess we're just going to have to wait ten years and see whether D&D survives or not. Of course, if it does, you can always play the "wrong bad fun" card then


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> I guess we're just going to have to wait ten years and see whether D&D survives or not. Of course, if it does, you can always play the "wrong bad fun" card then



It'll survive alright, I'd just prefer the mainstream of it not to go too far off the rails.  You're welcome to your bad wrong fun (with other consenting adults) in the privacy of your own home.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Again?  Really?  I suspect that you just disagree, and by saying you're confused you're trying to imply that my argument makes no sense.  Whatever.




No, truthfully, I'm confused.  I fail to understand why examining the conceits of genre is bad.  

Yes, I disagree, but, I am honestly trying to see where you are coming from with this.  Why is it superior to simply ignore the conceits of genre?  



> One of D&D's core strengths is that to a certain extent it does reflect this pulp fantasy S&S genre, and I think it can be attributed to much of it's success.




Yes, I agree that this is ONE of DND's core strengths.  However, it is only one.  Pulp fantasy is certainly a source of inspiration.  Then again, so is mythology (most of the clerical spells are pulled straight from myth and legend), high fantasy (the races, wizard as hero), and a host of other sources.  

Again, why should pulp S&S, although perhaps your favourite genre, be seen as the primary inspiration for the game?


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> I fail to understand why examining the conceits of genre is bad.



It's fine to examine the conceits, it's just that some of the attempts to "fix" these inconsistencies and idiosyncracies involve a cure worse than the disease.


> Again, why should pulp S&S, although perhaps your favourite genre, be seen as the primary inspiration for the game?



I don't know what version of the game you play on the moon, but down here on earth, D&D's implied setting is firmly rooted in sword and sorcery fantasy.


----------



## Victim (Jul 4, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Having those ideas is fine; the idea that those ideas are somehow harder to poke holes in than worlds that do not use those ideas is not.  IMHO, the "technology" involved in D&D is not the spells per se, but the casters, and you have no way to control them once they are created.  If our telephones only did what they wanted to do when they thought it served their interests best, I think we'd have fewer telephones.
> 
> In other words, this is a change in style, not a "maturation".
> 
> RC




Or you could compare the casters with the skilled scientists, engineers, and business people who invent, implement and fund our own technologies.  We don't exactly have these people under strict controls and they do affect major changes in the world by serving their own interests.  But that's why they're so highly valued.


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> Or you could compare the casters with the skilled scientists, engineers, and business people who invent, implement and fund our own technologies. We don't exactly have these people under strict controls and they do affect major changes in the world by serving their own interests. But that's why they're so highly valued.



Perhaps some folks would really rather be playing D20 Modern, but aren't admitting it to themselves because it's not D&D, so are attempting to change D&D into some equivalent of that.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> It's fine to examine the conceits, it's just that some of the attempts to "fix" these inconsistencies and idiosyncracies involve a cure worse than the disease.
> 
> I don't know what version of the game you play on the moon, but down here on earth, D&D's implied setting is firmly rooted in sword and sorcery fantasy.




Pardon?

How many elves are there in Conan?  Or dwarves?  Ho... I mean Halflings?  How many wizard protagonists are there in Sword and sorcery fiction?  How many intelligent races?  When is the last time you saw a spell casting, talking dragon in pulp S&S?  The game is called Dungeons and Dragons after all.

How many spell casting priests are there?  Bards?  No?  Paladins then.  Surely there must be paladins in there?  

How many times did Conan walk around in magical armor, with a magical shield, swinging a magical sword, shooting a magical bow, all the while wearing a magical helmet that protected his mind?  All at the same time?  

Because, on the Earth that most games get played on, this is EXACTLY what happens.

You can get as snarky as you like, but, trying to pass off your personal views of the game as any sort of fact is ludicrous.  Yes, DnD takes inspiration from Sword and Sorcery fantasy.  I do not deny that all all.  But, ignoring the HUGE amount of the game that has zero to do with SnS is just blind.


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> How many elves are there in Conan? Or dwarves? Ho... I mean Halflings? How many wizard protagonists are there in Sword and sorcery fiction? How many intelligent races? When is the last time you saw a spell casting, talking dragon in pulp S&S? The game is called Dungeons and Dragons after all.



Oh my, Conan lacks elves!  What about King of Elfland's Daughter or (of course) Lord of the Rings?  D&D is notorious for taking material from one (1) example in novels at a time, such as Vancian magic, Leiber theives guilds, Moorcockian chaos/law and those trolls and paladin from that Holger  book (Three Hearts and Three Lions?).  And then there's mythology, which is chockers with dark elves, dwarves, boggits, guttersnipes, what have you.  Smaug talks and halflings are borrowed from Tolkien's hobbits, but I expect you're going to tell me that Tolkien "isn't S&S fantasy".  Ho hum.

Now you're going to get all genre nazi on me, and tell me how Conan is the only true example of S&S fantasy, and that Tolkien is epic fantasy, Moorcock dark fantasy etc.  Save it, you'd just be blowing hot air.  I encompass all of the above in my definition of S&S fantasy, and it's a necessary descriptor because otherwise people make nonsense out of D&D's implied setting being "big F" Fantasy, which encompasses everything from Alice in Wonderland to Fantasia (and yes, I know about those Greyhawk modules that went to a D&Desque wonderland, but that was a special occasion, a bit like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and far from a typical example of the implied setting).

You cannot win this point except by splitting hairs on definitions, but I expect you'll try.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2006)

> encompass all of the above in my definition of S&S fantasy




Ok, now this makes things make a little more sense.  It's not a case of being limited to one sub-genre, rather you are inventing new definitions of names.  Sorry, but, under no circumstance have I ever seen Tolkein referred to as Sword and Sorcery fiction.  I was working under the assumption that in a discussion of genre, we would actually use the words as they are meant to be used, not inventing new definitions.

Also, I would certainly never equate mythology with S&S fiction.  

To me, DnD has always been Big F Fantasy as you call it.  I have never been under the assumption that we were to limit ourselves to dead authors.  While Conan is certainly not the only example of S&S fantasy, he is a well known one  Leiber also comes to mind.  As do a few others.  But, I don't place them in the same genre as Tolkein either.


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> To me, DnD has always been Big F Fantasy as you call it.



I put it to you that D&D is a lousy choice for handling "big F" Fantasy, because it's clearly so specialised towards pseudomedieval shenanigans involving wizards and warriors running around slaying fantasy monsters with swords and spells, drawing it's "mythic resonance" from the tropes associated with that (i.e. "the genre formerly known as sword & sorcery fantasy"). 

I doubt "big F" Fantasy would benefit from any rules at all, being so broad, setting non-specific and potentially so nonsensical or surreal.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2006)

> I doubt "big F" Fantasy would benefit from any rules at all, being so broad, setting non-specific and potentially so nonsensical or surreal.




Potentially, true.  But, then again, I include all fantasy in big F fantasy.  From Tarzan to Fantasia.  All of fantasy is a good source for inspiration, not simply as small subset of the genre.  

Or, look at it another way.  Would you call Dracula S&S fantasy?  To me, that's stretching the word beyond any recognition.  Dracula is solidly 19th century Romance.  Yet, Ravenloft is one of the more successful settings out there.  It draws very little from what you call S&S fantasy, yet does pretty well.  Planescape as well draws almost nothing from what you call S&S fantasy, yet is not considered a bad setting.  Mystara, one of the very first settings, featured six shooter pistol crossbows, flying ships and loads of magic.  And that was based on OD&D.  Spelljammer is another example of a setting which owes very little to what you are calling S&S.

The idea that there are good and bad inspirations for a game is simply not true.  While there are inspirations I personally might not like, I would never say that my tastes are any objective measure of value.  To me, the best thing that designers have done with the current incarnation of D&D is remove as much as possible of any "implied" setting, thus allowing exploration into other settings without the rules constantly getting in the way.


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> To me, the best thing that designers have done with the current incarnation of D&D is remove as much as possible of any "implied" setting, thus allowing exploration into other settings without the rules constantly getting in the way.



I don't get you.  The classes, races, spells, and assumptions about pseudomedieval technology level equipment & pseudomedieval S&S fantasy demographics in some world littered with dungeons and monsters are all still firmly entrenched in the PHB and DMG.  Those things, along with what the contents of the monster manuals imply are wandering around in a D&D world, describe the implied setting.  They _can_ be switched out for other stuff (or more commonly, tweaked and/or extended), but the implied setting is still there, more or less intact.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> I don't get you.  The classes, races, spells, and assumptions about pseudomedieval technology level equipment & pseudomedieval S&S fantasy demographics in some world littered with dungeons and monsters are all still firmly entrenched in the PHB and DMG.  Those things, along with what the contents of the monster manuals imply are wandering around in a D&D world, describe the implied setting.  They _can_ be switched out for other stuff (or more commonly, tweaked and/or extended), but the implied setting is still there, more or less intact.




The reason you aren't understanding is because you have defined S&S as such an enormous genre that it encompasses pretty much every fantasy novel written in the past century. If S&S is defined so broadly as to include Howard, Tolkein, Moorcock and Leiber in the same genre, then the label is more or less meaningless.

The implied setting as you call it, defined by the classes, demographics and Monster Manual looks absolutely nothing like any of the above authors.   Howard was low fantasy, sword and sorcery in its true meaning, as was Leiber.  About the only thing they have in common with Tolkein's works are technological level.  Moorcock is all over the place, some fairly low fantasy S&S stuff like the Warhound and the World's Pain while much of it is absolutely high fantasy like the Chronicles of Corum and Elric.

If you think that that's an implied setting, then, well, I guess I'd have to agree with you.  If you include the definition to mean so many different forms, then, sure, DND will do it.  But, if you include those four authors, then what reason do you have to exclude newer authors like Donaldson, Tad Williams, and, yes, Rowlings?  What about these novels, for you, removes them from this uber-genre you've created?  About the only difference I can see is the fact that the latter three are all still alive.


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> But, if you include those four authors, then what reason do you have to exclude newer authors like Donaldson, Tad Williams, and, yes, Rowlings? What about these novels, for you, removes them from this uber-genre you've created? About the only difference I can see is the fact that the latter three are all still alive.



Um...maybe because I haven't said I exclude them from it, so you're tilting at windmills?

Rowling's Harry Potter fits better into something I personally call "contemporary fantasy", and includes stuff like Buffy and Charmed...lots of S&S fantasy stuff hidden in a modern world setting.  I don't know what other people call it.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2006)

Now I really am confused.

What is the beef then with DND becoming self reflexive?  Many, many fantasy authors are doing precisely that.  I picked Tad Williams for precisely that reason - a fantasy author who creates worlds where magic is both very "scientific" and still cool.  The War of the Flowers is a good example of this.  As is, to some extent, the Dragonbone Chair series.  He doesn't handwave elements that don't make sense, he actually goes out of his way to examine them.

Granted, Harry Potter's world is more contemporary, but, only sort of.  Since the school has no elements from the Muggle world, technology is right out.  No guns, no computers.  But, there are frequently magic parallels to the same thing.  The school is massively warded (something every DnD player should relate to), houses fantastic amounts of magic, magic is repeatable and more or less predictable, monsters are suitably monstrous.

In what way ISN'T Harry Potter like a bog standard DnD campaign other than the fact that Harry doesn't kill as much stuff?  If Harry Potter was written for an adult audience, say a Wizard University, then it would likely look an awful lot like DnD.


----------



## rounser (Jul 4, 2006)

> What is the beef then with DND becoming self reflexive? Many, many fantasy authors are doing precisely that. I picked Tad Williams for precisely that reason - a fantasy author who creates worlds where magic is both very "scientific" and still cool. The War of the Flowers is a good example of this. As is, to some extent, the Dragonbone Chair series. He doesn't handwave elements that don't make sense, he actually goes out of his way to examine them.



Yes, and you can find examples of where psionics takes the place of magic in S&S fantasy, so some would argue that it's as legitimate to the genre as magic is.  Or S&S fantasy that involves sci fi or renaissance technology, or whatever...

Besides, in Tad Williams' case, he has free rein to make an internally consistent world, whereas D&D doesn't have that luxury because it has elements that are only there because they're useful to allow D&D to be played as a game.  Exploring the implications of them will only draw D&D further away from relevance to anyone but hardcore gamer types, but hey, you probably like stuff on your pizza that I don't.

I just don't think that your idea is going to serve to help D&D any, just harm it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2006)

I have no doubt that a setting could exist in which spellcasters are treated, essentially, as scientists and technitions.  However, in many ways spellcasters (and other high-level types, for that matter) are a lot more like superheroes.  They can create things to allow you to use thier power, but it is ultimately inherent within themselves, controlled by themselves.

If you assume that the NPCs in a campaign setting share the mindset of the PCs, why would anyone choose an NPC class?  Even if you were going to farm, it is better to be a rogue than a commoner.  D&D assumes, per RAW (those demographics Hussar mentioned above) that most people in the world make sub-optimal choices.  

The military as an analogy to spellcaster power ignores that the military uses weapons and ammo only under supervised conditions, and those weapons and ammo are tightly controlled.  At least they were when I spent my four years in the U.S. Army.  If that was your campaign world analogy, what controls are placed on spellcasters?

All world creation -- in role playing games and outside of them -- requires selective focusing on details, and selectively ignoring others.  It requires neither more or less suspension of disbelief to create a non-magitech world than a magitech one.  These are issues of style and taste, not maturity.

RC


----------



## XO (Jul 4, 2006)

*It's a Game, with Real Life Parallels*

Either people (NPCs) decide to move forward as entrepreneurs, and have done so for some time, or they do the previosu for a short spell, or they have remained steeped in minimalist views. Such choices within the campaign may be cultural and thus, regionalized. They may influence the whole setting.

The premisce of a world appearing out of nowhere at a time X with thousands of years of history and a "setting intelligence" or "setting knowledge" equivalent to zero-level is preposterous. How many contemporary city dwellers believe bears will spew poison at them? Oh, bears don't spew poison?

Some elements within a game CAN be spontaneous. Aberrations could arise as composites of will, dreams, imaginations, mixed with environment, latent magic, and stray magical energies. All aberrations? Depends on the campaign you wish to run. The world then becomes DEFINED by its ecology, well known to participants, and its spontaneity, chaotic and largely unknown to the participants.

As to power level, D&D presumes that if an individual is willing to be an entrepreneur, takes risks and has a little luck, they will likely have success within standard settings. In other settings, meeting all of these conditions may allow you to live while others die. Everyone will take to a life of adventuring, right? In the same was as everyone in America refuses a standard job to do their own thing as en entrepreneur?

Oh wait a minute! There are degrees of "jobs", and degrees of "entrepreneurship". Starting a new computer company to compete with Dell sounds like a major ordeal. The competition is established, entrenched, and loaded with resources. The pay-off is a long shot. Buying a franchise (such as opening a Dairy Queen) is more promising, but typically calls for drudgery not unlike having a job, with risk thrown in for good measure.

Detaining the power creep ties in with the body count. If no one ever dies, or gets horribly crippled, if no excruciating pain is involved in getting your arm sliced off and regorwn, then, everyone around the adventurers will be a veteran.

People want a reasonably good life, with reasonable expectations of continuance, and minimized effort. The blacksmith might bang away all day long. Does he? Only if a surge of business comes his way. Should the temporary surge become the norm, he'll slow down. His competitor may have decided to smith only masterwork items. Another decided to shoe horses. Sick of weapons. Variety strikes a pose!

A setting in conflict strives for survival. A setting at peace strives for betterment. The medieval equivalent works if confined to a short period in history, and no available magic. If books are needed, they will eventually be printed. The Guttenberg invention is nice. "Pop, chug, zing" printing is even better: magic moves things forward.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 4, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> It'll survive alright, I'd just prefer the mainstream of it not to go too far off the rails. You're welcome to your bad wrong fun (with other consenting adults) in the privacy of your own home.






If D&D survives and does so successfully, then what does it matter what the mainstream does? Personally, I've never really cared much what the mainstream in D&D game design is doing. I love the fact that Eberron exists, since it saves me time and effort in replicating many of the things it does, but even without it I'd play that way, and I'll continue to do so in the future, mainstream or not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2006)

XO said:
			
		

> The premisce of a world appearing out of nowhere at a time X with thousands of years of history and a "setting intelligence" or "setting knowledge" equivalent to zero-level is preposterous. How many contemporary city dwellers believe bears will spew poison at them? Oh, bears don't spew poison?




The idea that a setting cannot have the "setting knowledge" that actual peoples had in the real world is equally preposterous.  It really depends upon how much good information and ability to travel the average person in a setting has.  The average person doesn't have the whole plethora of divination spells; he either accepts authority or does not.  Wanderers might tell stories that are true, untrue, or a mixture of both (how often, even in the real world, do we mess up the stories that we tell, even dealing with known quantities?).

It is only in recent times that animals like the gorilla and komodo dragon ceased to be traveller's tales.  Sailors used to turn a coin by stuffing monkies & fish together and selling them as mounted "mermaids" -- when the platypus was first discovered, the mounted specimens sent to Europe were thought to be made the same way.

"Setting information" even today is sometimes dim and murky.  Why should it be "well known" to the inhabitants of a fantasy kingdom that abberrations "could arise as composites of will, dreams, imaginations, mixed with environment, latent magic, and stray magical energies" when people in the modern world still argue about where _we_ came from?  It was not so horribly long ago that people believed in spontaneous generation, and that could be a true theory within a given world (or a widely believed false theory).



> There are degrees of "jobs", and degrees of "entrepreneurship". Starting a new computer company to compete with Dell sounds like a major ordeal. The competition is established, entrenched, and loaded with resources. The pay-off is a long shot. Buying a franchise (such as opening a Dairy Queen) is more promising, but typically calls for drudgery not unlike having a job, with risk thrown in for good measure.




Yet, there is no case in a per-RAW D&D world where choosing a PC class is inferior to choosing an NPC class.  Yet, per RAW, nearly all the world chooses NPC classes.  So, either the RAW assumes that the average person makes sub-optimal choices, or that the average person is not actually making a choice.



> A setting in conflict strives for survival. A setting at peace strives for betterment. The medieval equivalent works if confined to a short period in history, and no available magic. If books are needed, they will eventually be printed. The Guttenberg invention is nice. "Pop, chug, zing" printing is even better: magic moves things forward.




Objection!  Calls for supposition on the part of the witness.    

Magic can move things forward, and if you subscribe to the idea of a benevolent universe with largely benevolent beings, sure it will.  OTOH, I note that no one ever bothered to respond to the bit about all the farmers being put out of work.  Or the part about creating an abundant food source (magical energy) for creatures that consume it, and the effects thereof.  Or, for that matter, how you then control the casters.

You are correct when you suggest that all people want a reasonably good life, but IME people are not necessarily rational as individuals as to what that life is.  Moreover, when you get people together in groups, rationality can go out the window faster than Superman when he hears Lois Lane calling for help.  Realism takes not only progress into account, but also those things that stand in the way of progress -- including the fact that people often do not agree as to what "progress" means.  Hence organic farming.

As said earlier, both are stylistic concerns.  You can create a world either way.  Neither one is necessarily more mature, and neither one is necessarily more rigorous in its realism.  As an example, Harry Potter is not realistic at all, IMHO, and it handwaves nearly all the consequences of the main premise.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2006)

> All world creation -- in role playing games and outside of them -- requires selective focusing on details, and selectively ignoring others. It requires neither more or less suspension of disbelief to create a non-magitech world than a magitech one. These are issues of style and taste, not maturity.




And, to a large degree this is true.  However (you knew that was coming didn't ya?  ) many of the large campaign settings have ignored the exact same things each and every time in an attempt to recreate a particular style of genre.  Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, the two largest campaign settings by a large shot, have ignored exactly the same things - the effect of wide spread industrial magic and the presence of spell casters and their effect on society.  

Sure, we have the Red Wizards of Thay, but, by and large, states are set up as analogues to real world city states and small (and not so small) nation states in Middle Ages Europe.  

I do see it as a maturation process when we finally have settings which ask the difficult questions rather than simply sweeping them under the carpet.  Why shouldn't game mechanics have an impact on the setting?  This is a question that has been largely ignored for thirty years of game development in DnD.  This isn't simply a style difference.

If it was that simple.  Just a difference in taste, then we would have seen it long ago.  But, it's not.  The difficulties inherent in incorporating the existence of DnD mechanics in a consistent, reasonably detailed world are numerous.  This is a hard question with a capital H.  This is why we haven't seen it from d20 sources very much.  Yes, there have been steam punk, but, then again, these systems are pretty far removed from DnD.  We have seen numerous reductionist systems - Conan, Thieves World, True 20, Midnight.  

But, by and large, the only undertaking that has had any legs in decades for answering the truly hard question has been Eberron.  Mystara went a fair way with the question, but, generally it was easier in that system since much of the mechanics were undefined or certainly less defined.  In 20 years of 1e and 2e, the only settings that have explored this to any degree have been Planescape and Spelljammer, both very much niche settings with followings, but, nowhere near the success of Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk.

In other words, you guys have had it your way for decades.  It's time to give the other side a shot at the kitty.  Let's actually start examining those sacred fallacies and see where it leads us.  For those who aren't interested, Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk will always be with us, but, considering the success of Eberron, I would say that there are more than a few fans out there who are tired of the same old same old and would like to try something new.

Not that new will necessarily be better.  But it will be different.  And maybe we'll be able to see some new answers to the hard questions, which in turn may lead to even better understandings of campaign design.  Who knows?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And, to a large degree this is true.  However (you knew that was coming didn't ya?  ) many of the large campaign settings have ignored the exact same things each and every time in an attempt to recreate a particular style of genre.  Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, the two largest campaign settings by a large shot, have ignored exactly the same things - the effect of wide spread industrial magic and the presence of spell casters and their effect on society.




There has to be widespread industrial magic in order to ignore its effect.  Until 3E, the RAW rather discouraged widespread industrial magic due to hoop-jumping.  Since we have discussed in the past the difficulties of item creation pre-3E, I feel certain you'd agree that this sort of thing wouldn't have cropped up under the magical "rules" of those worlds.



> I do see it as a maturation process when we finally have settings which ask the difficult questions rather than simply sweeping them under the carpet.  Why shouldn't game mechanics have an impact on the setting?  This is a question that has been largely ignored for thirty years of game development in DnD.  This isn't simply a style difference.




No, but neither is it entirely accurate.  Earlier editions of the game didn't simply sweep those questions under the carpet; they left them on the dining room table.  The rules were designed to allow you to play in numerous play styles.  Simply put, the rules were abstractions of genre, and acknowledged to be so.

As a simple example, in 1e, magic users couldn't weare armor.  Why?  Because in most fantasy and folklore wizards didn't wear armor.  Not wearing armor was the genre rule, and hence the rule of the game.

In 3e, wizards can wear armor, but they have a chance that their spells fail when doing so.  Why?  Ultimately, and past a lot of handwaving that many folks find questionable, the same reason as in 1e.

I don't think that these questions are any more addressed in 3e than 1e.  What 3e has supplied for some folks is the _illusion_ of addressing them (just as _The Next Generation_ changed the technobabble of _Star Trek_ to make the handwaving a little less obvious).  The real difference is that, when _Star Trek_ came out, the audience was more willing to acknowledge that handwaving, but by the time of _TNG_, they viewed themselves as being more "sophisticated" and wanted to pretend that the handwaving had lessened or ceased.  Same amount of handwaving, different ways of dealing with it.

In any event, though, magitech has nothing to do with the effects of the RAW on the world; it is an interpretation of how the RAW could affect a world.  It is only one interpretation, requires as many unanswered questions, and requires as much suspension of disbelief.  

Eberron is an interesting campaign setting, and it wouldn't have worked very well under 1e or 2e because those rulesets didn't have the complexity required (IMHO) for dealing well with industrialism or post industrialism.  They also didn't deal well with the idea of moderns travelling to a fantasy world ala Narnia because of the class limitations.  This, more than anything, is why we didn't see it long ago in D&D.  The D20 ruleset is far more flexible.

By all means, take your shot at the kitty.  Just don't think you've escaped the influence of sacred fallacies.

RC


----------



## Altalazar (Jul 4, 2006)

I don't see any problem with it.  You have someone saying he played "essential" D&D and used that as the basis for making the new edition of D&D.  That seems only logical.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2006)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> You have someone saying he played "essential" D&D and used that as the basis for making the new edition of D&D.  That seems only logical.




But, as many threads have pointed out, people played 1e and 2e with a huge number of variables and in many, many different ways.  It has been said, on these boards anyway, and by people that generally disagree with me as well, that it is almost impossible to talk meaningfully about earlier editions except within the context of personal experience or particular worlds.  If this is true, how can "essential" D&D be anything other than opinion?

Besides, 3e allows for magitech (which is a good thing).  It does not mandate magitech (which is also a good thing).  

It is not true that one style (magic as technology/magic as magic) is more mature than the other, requires less handwaving, or is more realistic.  You just have to look at the questions I've asked, seen the lack of response to specifics, and you can see that all sorts of things get swept under the carpet with the magitech folks.  Just as with the non-magitech folks.  All that's changed is what's under the carpet, and what's not.

I've actually gone something like 180 degrees on this.  After a while of playing 3.x, and reading threads here, I really felt like cracking the earlier editions again.  It felt like something had been lost.  Now, while I deny that this is purely "nostaligia" (as some demand it to be), I realize that what I had begun to do was buy into this      that the current edition can only be played in one way.  Simply not true.



RC


----------



## Spatula (Jul 4, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay. Let me see if I can restate it. Yes, D&D has ALWAYS had advancing characters, magic items, and lots of spells.
> 
> However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly.



This is true.  One of the changes in 3E was that they asked people how long campaigns usually lasted (a year), and altered the XP rate so that players could see the upper levels in that timeframe.  This is something that is so amazingly trivial to "fix" to suit your tastes.



> They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control."



My one long-term 1st edition character got to 12th/13th level as I recall, mostly playing through the official AD&D adventures.  And he had an entire page devoted to his list of magic items.  This wasn't a childhood monty haul campaign, this was what old-school TSR was publishing in terms of "style of play."



> And the characters were supposed to be "exceptional" so that low-level magic wasn't all that commonplace. As a result, the default settings felt more medieval and less Harry Potter-ish.



The abundance of low-level magic is up to you, the campaign-builder.  Forgotten Realms, which predates 3E (and even 2E) has always been saturated with magic (and high-level NPCs).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2006)

Spatula is right.  The system is easy to modify to lower magic.  It is simply _easier_ to use as-is.  All you need to do is alter XP progression (say to 1/2 standard), give out the same treasure you'd have given out in previous editions, and use appropriate challenges, and the system is fairly self-correcting IME & IMHO.

RC


----------



## Spatula (Jul 4, 2006)

I see now that I've come late to the party and my points have already been made.  Back to the rounser vs Hussar match!


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 4, 2006)

This is what Unearthed Arcana was for, and why they should do more books similar to it.  It is possible for D&D to get drowned in its on D&Disms.  

Thats why people make houserules for thier own settings. (I certainlty have)  My world of Alterra isnt Greyhawk, and I have altered the rules to reflect that.    

One thing that Id be really glad for is some good guidelines for a lower magic item game, and how best to adjust monster CRs to match.  

But I also think that Eberron was a great idea, taking the rules that exist and extropolating them out to what a world based on them would be like.  

A Forgotten Realms book of "houserules" making allowances for the Realms to deviate from the core of D&D would be good too. (I mean more than the FRCS and the rest already do)  Even just noting what variant rules from UA would fit best in the Realms or something would be nice.  


Yes, it is possible for the game to get bogged down in its own gamisms, but completely ignoring the consequences of the rules in world design and handwaving edverything isnt something I would ever want.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2006)

> There has to be widespread industrial magic in order to ignore its effect. Until 3E, the RAW rather discouraged widespread industrial magic due to hoop-jumping. Since we have discussed in the past the difficulties of item creation pre-3E, I feel certain you'd agree that this sort of thing wouldn't have cropped up under the magical "rules" of those worlds.




Before I get to the quote, let me say that I do agree with most of what RC is saying.  And you have no idea how much that bewilders me to say.  

There are two issues here though.  I wasn't really talking about the existence of magic items and the creations of magic items.  The simple cost of such makes them out of reach for the majority of the people.  It takes a fairly significant town to get a 9000 gp Decanter of Endless Water, and by that time, it's effects aren't all that great anyway.  There are simply too many people.

There is another issue though.  The existence of permanent spells at low level.  Continual Light/Flame, Animate Dead, Make Whole (in 3e, I used Summon Monster spells to keep bringing in Formian Workers to cast multiple Make Whole spells to repair a small castle for free - a hole that was plugged in 3.5), Bless Water, Soften Earth or Stone, healing of all forms,  and I'm sure there are others, are all very low level spells, quite possibly available in fairly small settlements.  

These spells all have the ability to change a setting greatly.  Since they are cast by low level characters, control issues aren't really a problem.  A third level wizard or cleric isn't all that powerful.  These spells also existed in previous incarnations of the game, but their effects were largely ignored.  At least current design philosophy seems to be taking these somewhat into account.

Of course, this is also ignoring things like animal husbandry.  With the huge number of potentially extremely useful creatures out there, it's a little surprising that we don't see more of this.  Hippogriff cavalry for example.  Or even just using hippogriff in a similar way to WWI airplanes - spotting and messengers.  I could see this sort of thing morphing into a sort of Air Cavalry usage similar to modern helicopter units.  Troop transport for small numbers of troops and supplies.

The mind boggles.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I've actually gone something like 180 degrees on this.  After a while of playing 3.x, and reading threads here, I really felt like cracking the earlier editions again.  It felt like something had been lost.  Now, while I deny that this is purely "nostaligia" (as some demand it to be), I realize that what I had begun to do was buy into this      that the current edition can only be played in one way.  Simply not true.RC




Thus we have seen RC grow as a gamer


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Thus we have seen RC grow as a gamer




Nah.  Thus we have seen RC learn to disregard the constant whining that goes on from a vocal minority.  My gaming has changed at all.     Well, except for the complete rules rewrite.    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> These spells all have the ability to change a setting greatly.  Since they are cast by low level characters, control issues aren't really a problem.  A third level wizard or cleric isn't all that powerful.  These spells also existed in previous incarnations of the game, but their effects were largely ignored.  At least current design philosophy seems to be taking these somewhat into account.




Control issues are still a factor.  First off, how do you know that the person casting the low-level spell you want isn't capable of more.  Second off, there are some low-level spells that can be used to great effect in a military or political manner.  Finally, allowing low-level characters to prosper is how you make higher-level characters.

If you really wanted to create a setting that followed the logical results of the game, governments would work very hard to constrain spellcasters.  

And why all the NPC classes?  Why don't the farmers take levels in Rogue instead?  The mind boggles.


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And why all the NPC classes?  Why don't the farmers take levels in Rogue instead?  The mind boggles.




Maybe they know that if they take PC classes they'll get sucked into all kinds of dangerous adventures? 

Or all those rural villages where everyone was a rogue perished to abnormally high levels of thievery. No one was farming, instead just stealing from others.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Maybe they know that if they take PC classes they'll get sucked into all kinds of dangerous adventures?
> 
> Or all those rural villages where everyone was a rogue perished to abnormally high levels of thievery. No one was farming, instead just stealing from others.




If we assume that examining the implications of the RAW is "maturity" then these are valid questions.  I used those examples to show that it isn't so.  The RAW cannot possibly take into account every campaign setup out there, and it is the synthesis of the campaign setting and the Rules In Use that is important.

Nothing in the RAW mandates that rogues go adventuring, or steal.  They are simply able to be better commoners than commoners are.  Likewise, why would anyone have warriors when they could have fighters, rangers, and barbarians?  The D&D demographics that Hussar uses as a cushion against the illogic of magitech is itself illogical.  

Which is okay.  But let's not pretend that it's the height of logic or somehow more "mature".    

RC


----------



## Deadguy (Jul 5, 2006)

_Eberron_ helped me enormously in picturing the whys and wherefores of NPC and PC classes. Simply put the odds are that the farmer is a Commoner simply because he lacks the potential to be anything else. Just as in real life, where many people aren't cut out to be doctors or artists or politicians. People _in the game_ don't _choose_ their classes; their circumstances and their aptitudes choose the 'class' that best represents their role. This automatically makes PCs somewhat special, since like the other possessors of PC classes, they are the few percent of the population who have that special something to reach greater heights than the typical person (since most are, of course, Commoners).

Anyway, back to discussions about the genre conventions of D&D...


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Nothing in the RAW mandates that rogues go adventuring, or steal.  They are simply able to be better commoners than commoners are.  Likewise, why would anyone have warriors when they could have fighters, rangers, and barbarians?  The D&D demographics that Hussar uses as a cushion against the illogic of magitech is itself illogical.
> 
> Which is okay.  But let's not pretend that it's the height of logic or somehow more "mature".




RAW is pretty much silent on the inner workings of peasant minds. Maybe they are not min-maxers, and just enjoy the challenge of playing (well, living, really) a sub-optimal class. Besides, the rules are silent on reproduction, so with the population unable to do that, most kinds of civilizations would be impossible. 

I think the real answer is that the NPCs aren't given a choice as to what class they become. They are slaves to the population class-level demographics in DMG, wanted they that or not. That's RAW!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> I think the real answer is that the NPCs aren't given a choice as to what class they become. They are slaves to the population class-level demographics in DMG, wanted they that or not. That's RAW!




I had suggested that earlier.  Either they choose suboptimally, or they have no choice.

However, if one claims that they cannot wrap their mind around an NPC 12th level wizard and a 12th level PC wizard having different mindsets, one almost requires that the 12th level NPC also grew up in the late 20th/early 21st Century or a near-equivilent.  Moreover, if one can claim that the NPCs are "slaves to the population class-level demographics" then one can just as easily claim that the NPCs are "slaves to the campaign setting mindset".  I.e., the PCs and very few others are trend setters (perhaps ala Leonardo da Vinci).

Deadguy's answer about demographics is, IMHO, correct, as is yours.  However, it is an answer which removes the "logic" about NPCs being molded from choices that character makes related to the rules.  

The game doesn't _have to be_ like this, but neither is more "mature" or logical.

RC


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I had suggested that earlier.  Either they choose suboptimally, or they have no choice.
> 
> However, if one claims that they cannot wrap their mind around an NPC 12th level wizard and a 12th level PC wizard having different mindsets, one almost requires that the 12th level NPC also grew up in the late 20th/early 21st Century or a near-equivilent.  Moreover, if one can claim that the NPCs are "slaves to the population class-level demographics" then one can just as easily claim that the NPCs are "slaves to the campaign setting mindset".  I.e., the PCs and very few others are trend setters (perhaps ala Leonardo da Vinci).




I don't see your example of class choice and the implication of spells and magic on society as similar. I see the existence of commoners much more believable than INT 20 wizards not making full use of their spells. A commoners (say, a farmer) son might usually be discouraged from becoming anything other than a commoner (a farmer) by in-game(world) situations. INT 20 wizard would realistically come up with more creative (and world changing) uses for their spells than you and I.

So I'd say most people are commoners not because of meta-game RAW (that was a bit of tongue in cheek), but because of the in-game effects of the game world. Discouraging parents, too much field work to get started on roguery, etc .. 

However, for any given magician who missed those discouragements, and became a wizard, it's hard to imagine why he would not try to creatively apply the spells. Some wouldn't - like our society has university graduates working at mickey dees. But some would. 

So I don't see the lack of all-rogue farming villages as damning to the exercise of creating a fully recursively D&D world. Or something. Look at the big words!   



> The game doesn't _have to be_ like this, but neither is more "mature" or logical.




I'd be vary of using the word 'mature' in connection to anything D&D. Like 'videogamey' it's lost it's meaning. But I think it would be more logical.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2006)

But, RC, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

The RAW states X is true.  I don't dispute that at all.  Whether it be the effects of a spell or the demographics.  The rules don't have to be logical since they are the set constraints upon which the world operates.  You don't have to explain why the demographics are the way they are.  The demographics are given.

Granted, you can explore that question, but, that's beyond the scope of what I am talking about.  I am not talking about changing the rules of the game.  I am talking about applying those rules to a setting.

I don't have to worry about why there are so many peasants and NPC classes.  It's not important to this discussion.  There's no more point in questioning the DMG demographics than there is to discussing the source of a fireball spell.  It simply doesn't matter.  Take it as a given that the RAW dictates the restrictions of a setting.

Now, with that out of the way, let's go back to looking at spells.

Certainly some states might want to heavily control magic.  Possibly.  Then again, most of the low level magics don't have much of an effect.  Charm Person, for example.  It only works about 50% of the time, and those that make their saving throws KNOW that someone tried to charm them.  An incredibly risky venture for our budding spy mage.  Not only that, but it only works on one person and then for only a few hours.  And, it doesn't make the victim a zombie.  So you are a trusted friend.  The bank manager still isn't going to open the safe for you.  The king isn't going to hand over his royal seal.  

Sure, you could make it silent and still, but, then again, now you're talking about a minimum 5th level mage and beyond the scope of what I'm talking about.

Detect thoughts only lasts a few minutes.  Not long enough to be a major threat.  In fact, most of the low level spells only last for very short durations.  The threat posed is pretty minor compared to the threat posed by the ravening hordes of monsters floating around.

The existence of various monsters would most likely encourage leaders to be pretty friendly to spell casters.  Even from a historical perspective, spell casters were revered in many cultures.  The Romans had soothsayers.  Pretty much every tribal group had shamans.  Egypt had wizards.  Yes, if we limit ourselves to Middle Ages Europe, then probably there would be persecution of casters.  

But, why should we?

edit

Yeah, Numion is right. Mature is the wrong word.  My appologies for that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> However, for any given magician who missed those discouragements, and became a wizard, it's hard to imagine why he would not try to creatively apply the spells. Some wouldn't - like our society has university graduates working at mickey dees. But some would.




And given the power level that magicians can reach, and the vast preponderance towards spells that have military and/or political applications, it makes sense that D&D societies would do everything in their power to nip spellcasters in the bud.

You can play the game in whatever way you want.  However, the presence of "adventurers" perforce mandates a level of social flexibility that is simply unrealistic no matter how you parse it.  The more widespread knowledge is about the abilities of magicians, the more governments will attempt to control them -- just as weapons are classified and controlled in the real world.  

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, RC, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
> 
> The RAW states X is true.  I don't dispute that at all.  Whether it be the effects of a spell or the demographics.  The rules don't have to be logical since they are the set constraints upon which the world operates.  You don't have to explain why the demographics are the way they are.  The demographics are given.




But, if "No magic shops" was a given in, say, 1e (as many contend), that is a limitation in the RAW that precludes selling magic items wholesale.  Hence, if you don't include the RAW in what has to be logical, then the same observation applies to all editions, and again the argument collapses.  After all, earlier you were concerned about the idea that previous editions had spells that could easily make magic items, yet the RAW assumed no magic item shops.

And, again, applying the RAW (even without invoking Rule 0, which certainly means that one can apply logic to any part of the RAW within the context of the RAW) you end up with quite a few questions about the logic of the setting.  Why don't governments control spellcasters?  They certainly could, without violating any part of the RAW, devise some control method that limits spellcasting (antimagic field collars, for example).

As I suggested earlier, there is no difference between limiting the scope of applying logic to a setting now or earlier.



> Certainly some states might want to heavily control magic.  Possibly.  Then again, most of the low level magics don't have much of an effect.  Charm Person, for example.  It only works about 50% of the time, and those that make their saving throws KNOW that someone tried to charm them.




But, once charmed, they can be induced to forgo future saving throws, because their buddy the mage is casting "helpful magic".  And even when you say that you are not talking about a minimum 5th level mage, where do you imagine 5th level mages come from?  If you're worried about snakes, do you crush the eggs in the nest or wait until the cobras are full-grown?



> The existence of various monsters would most likely encourage leaders to be pretty friendly to spell casters.  Even from a historical perspective, spell casters were revered in many cultures.




Because the effects they could produce were both unreliable and minor.  Even a 1st level wizard is better at magic than all but the most notable RW examples.  The minute you make magic reliable, demonstrable, and growing exponentially in power, you change that dynamic.



> Yeah, Numion is right. Mature is the wrong word.  My appologies for that.




No worries.   I don't think "logical" is the right word, either.  It is simply different.    

RC


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And given the power level that magicians can reach, and the vast preponderance towards spells that have military and/or political applications, it makes sense that D&D societies would do everything in their power to nip spellcasters in the bud.
> 
> You can play the game in whatever way you want.  However, the presence of "adventurers" perforce mandates a level of social flexibility that is simply unrealistic no matter how you parse it.  The more widespread knowledge is about the abilities of magicians, the more governments will attempt to control them -- just as weapons are classified and controlled in the real world.




It would be a nice thought exercise to contemplate what would happen between two nations, one of which has stifled the 'natural' progress of magic to strictly government approved tasks, and one that has allowed more free approach.

Besides, control would be notoriously difficult since sorcerers are just born, and don't require formal training. 

And how unrealistic are adventurers? Remember the rules: a high level group of heroes can achieve pretty spectacular results. Any nation would gain advantage over their competitors by allowing them, and employing them for national purposes.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 5, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Any nation would gain advantage over their competitors by allowing them, and employing them for national purposes.




But there is also great risk. The basic problem with any singularly powerful weapon - anything that's so darned useful against your foes is pretty dangerous to you, as well. Sure, you'd like to employ them, but they're quite capable of turning on you.  It is as if you had a free-willed nuclear missile, that could pick it's own target if it so chose, and doesn't really require you to hit the red button to launch...


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> But there is also great risk. The basic problem with any singularly powerful weapon - anything that's so darned useful against your foes is pretty dangerous to you, as well. Sure, you'd like to employ them, but they're quite capable of turning on you.  It is as if you had a free-willed nuclear missile, that could pick it's own target if it so chose, and doesn't really require you to hit the red button to launch...




If magic doesn't keep nations from waging war, there will be losers and winners in wars. A nation on a losing streak in a war could be quite likely to take those risks. And they would employ adventurers - maybe a bit like the privateering charters used in ye olde earth. (Might even promise full rights and freedom to encage in adventuring after the war )

Would there be any adventurers to hire in such a desperate situation, if all the nations have been hating on them? I think yes. Adventurers require only one uncontrolled tract of land to thrive and grow to their 'full size'. I think such a land would most of the time exist on a planet where the nations are with an anti-magic stance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

Excepting, of course, that developing anti-magic as a defense would be better (and more controllable, perhaps) than developing magic.  

You can do a lot of thought experiments, and you can devise a lot of nifty in-game societies based upon a ground of assumptions, but assuming that those assumptions are anything other than shifting ground is a mistake, IMHO.

Again, the Superman paradox.  That anit-magic state, if it falls to magic, is liable to end up even more anti-magic than when it started.  Or else, again, why would anyone choose to be anything other than a sorcerer under that setup?  We are again perforce claiming that NPCs choose NPC classes largely because they lack the free will that PCs have, but somehow NPCs with PC classes have more free will than NPCs without (even though they follow the same demographics).

Not. Logical.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> But there is also great risk. The basic problem with any singularly powerful weapon - anything that's so darned useful against your foes is pretty dangerous to you, as well. Sure, you'd like to employ them, but they're quite capable of turning on you.  It is as if you had a free-willed nuclear missile, that could pick it's own target if it so chose, and doesn't really require you to hit the red button to launch...




Exactly.

And so, if you are a nation with free-willed nuclear missiles, you'd want to control access to those missiles, control their ability to exercise their free will, and prevent other nations from gaining them.  In short, you would use your superior might to browbeat any other nation into controlling their own potential missiles as much as you were able.

RC


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, the Superman paradox.  That anit-magic state, if it falls to magic, is liable to end up even more anti-magic than when it started.  Or else, again, why would anyone choose to be anything other than a sorcerer under that setup?  We are again perforce claiming that NPCs choose NPC classes largely because they lack the free will that PCs have, but somehow NPCs with PC classes have more free will than NPCs without (even though they follow the same demographics).




Well, people can't choose to be sorcerers because it requires innate talent. A player can make that decision. A PC or an NPC cant.

I'll backtrack a little (like I already did) and say that what class an NPC becomes is not because the lack of his free will, but the situations and restrictions of his life in the fantasy / lala land.

Some indeed become sorcerers. But most can't or won't.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Well, people can't choose to be sorcerers because it requires innate talent. A player can make that decision. A PC or an NPC cant.
> 
> I'll backtrack a little (like I already did) and say that what class an NPC becomes is not because the lack of his free will, but the situations and restrictions of his life in the fantasy / lala land.
> 
> Some indeed become sorcerers. But most can't or won't.




Fair enough....but then the same can be applied to spell selection.  And, again, you can create that low fantasy world just as logically as the magitech one.

However, I think that the original argument required that the world be designed based upon the logic of the rules, as though the rules were more than an emulation of genre.  What you are basically saying (I think) is that the rules emulate genre, and I agree with you there 100%.  I said the same earlier.



RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 5, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> It would be a nice thought exercise to contemplate what would happen between two nations, one of which has stifled the 'natural' progress of magic to strictly government approved tasks, and one that has allowed more free approach.




I myself would be reluctant to go very far with this contemplation without first "completing" the ruleset of DnD to allow for the additional spells, feats, and skills that would exist in a "simulationist" fantasy world.  For example - the "Detect Sorcerer" spell.  IMO the DnD rules are incomplete when it comes to painting a picture of what a complete fantasy world would be like.  The rules are focused towards dungeon crawls.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Besides, control would be notoriously difficult since sorcerers are just born, and don't require formal training.




As I alluded to above, though, a fantasy world which has a species of dog that can "smell" arcane spell casters, as well as a Detect Sorcerer spell, etc. paints a completely different picture.  I don't know what you mean by "notoriously difficult" - probably just that the powers listed in the Core Rules make this a difficult task. 



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> And how unrealistic are adventurers? Remember the rules: a high level group of heroes can achieve pretty spectacular results. Any nation would gain advantage over their competitors by allowing them, and employing them for national purposes.




A high level group of heroes is more unrealistic than you would gather by contemplating a PC group.  PC adventuring groups IMO have a great amount of metagaming that goes on to justify their existence.  

However, the natural place to look for a "state-sanctioned" adventuring party would be a class of NPC nobles chosen for the task.  Part of a vassals military obligation to his lord could be the furnishing of a arcane spell-caster (or other "adventurer" type) who maintains membership in an "adventuring party"-type strike force.  These "adventurers" would all be land-owners (as required) with family connections that helps ensure their loyalty to the state.  

IMO, the "threat" that an adventuring party poses to the state is no different than any other "private army" within the state.  Such private armies do exist under the right conditions - and so would adventuring parties.  There are plenty of historical guides - mercenary companies, orders of knighthood, privateers, etc.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We could feed everyone on earth.  We could house everyone.  We could control our population and save our environment.
> 
> Please explain the difference.




Virtually none of those things would be of benefit to those in positions of power.

Conversely, many of the practical applications of magic would be enormously valuable to those in power. As just a basic example - an army marches on its stomach. Increasing the crop yields of your land through the judicious application of magical effects increases the size of the army you can afford to keep in the field, giving you an advantage over your neighbors. A ruler who _didn't_ exploit magic in a world in which magic is real would not be a ruler of anything other than a mud pond for very long.


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> As I alluded to above, though, a fantasy world which has a species of dog that can "smell" arcane spell casters, as well as a Detect Sorcerer spell, etc. paints a completely different picture.  I don't know what you mean by "notoriously difficult" - probably just that the powers listed in the Core Rules make this a difficult task.




That's all I have to go by. A nation where magic is restricted by the government is one possibility, yes, but other possibilities exist. A state that is run by powerful magicians, for example. Maybe it was an opressive state at some point, but some order of mages took over by high-level magic.

Even with spells, control would be difficult on a global scale. There would always be some part of the planet where magicians might thrive. Not beholden to distance, they could easily stage coups across the planet. 



> A high level group of heroes is more unrealistic than you would gather by contemplating a PC group.  PC adventuring groups IMO have a great amount of metagaming that goes on to justify their existence.
> 
> However, the natural place to look for a "state-sanctioned" adventuring party would be a class of NPC nobles chosen for the task.  Part of a vassals military obligation to his lord could be the furnishing of a arcane spell-caster (or other "adventurer" type) who maintains membership in an "adventuring party"-type strike force.  These "adventurers" would all be land-owners (as required) with family connections that helps ensure their loyalty to the state.




For a diplomatic mission, nobles, yes. If something needs to get done, a normal adventuring party might be more effective. Like assassination, acquisition of some key piece of the enemys magical power (I wage that a Mirror of Prowess might be one such thing), etc..



> IMO, the "threat" that an adventuring party poses to the state is no different than any other "private army" within the state.  Such private armies do exist under the right conditions - and so would adventuring parties.  There are plenty of historical guides - mercenary companies, orders of knighthood, privateers, etc.




IMO it's quite different. Unable to terrorize civilians on a grand scale like an army, an adventuring group would be a threat mostly to key members of any ruling elite. Against a conventional army the elite is mostly safe until their military might is crushed (or until their own army turns on them). So I'd say the threat is decisively different than what a mercenary company would pose.

An order of knights can't scry the Kings location, teleport nearby and disintegrate him. Now, in a world where some people can do that, the King would have protections against that. But he would be severely hindered by those protections. Most of the anti-teleport spells I've seen are tied to a location, for example.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Virtually none of those things would be of benefit to those in positions of power.
> 
> Conversely, many of the practical applications of magic would be enormously valuable to those in power. As just a basic example - an army marches on its stomach. Increasing the crop yields of your land through the judicious application of magical effects increases the size of the army you can afford to keep in the field, giving you an advantage over your neighbors. A ruler who _didn't_ exploit magic in a world in which magic is real would not be a ruler of anything other than a mud pond for very long.




The value of providing a service does not change because you have magic available to you.  All that changes, as was pointed out earlier, is the ease by which such services can be made available.  Increasing the crop yields of your land isn't necessary if you control casters who can make food for your armies, which is both simpler and better (as it helps to prevent potential revolters from having the same advantages).

It may be true that a ruler who didn't exploit magic in a D&D world would not be a ruler for long (although, strictly speaking, Hussar's and Numion's arguments about the demographics of D&D worlds being essentially hardwired might make even that conclusion doubtful), but it is far more true that a ruler who didn't control _how magic was used_ in his domain -- and, to the extent of his power, in all domains he could -- would rule a smaller mud pond a lot sooner.

Obviously, you can create a reasonably logical account of a world with magitech.  You can make an equally reasonabaly logical account of a world without.  Which is the point -- neither is a more logical extrapolation of the D&D rules than the other.  They only vary in what they handwave, and what they ignore.

In a real D&D magitech world, IMHO, all of the rulers would be immortal liches or quasi-divine beings that ruthlessly squashed lesser spellcasters when they reached a certain level.  And, quite likely, on some level, there would be a secret cartel that met to determine the fate of the world, and who fought meaningless wars with their pawns just for entertainment value.

In your more peaceful and good-natured magitech worlds, at the very least, most of the monstrous races would have gone the way of the lion in Europe or the smilodon.  Have you ever read Hong's account of the average D&D commoner?  Coordinated spellcasters would work harder to eliminate ankhegs once and for all than to build houses, IMHO.

RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 5, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Even with spells, control would be difficult on a global scale. There would always be some part of the planet where magicians might thrive. Not beholden to distance, they could easily stage coups across the planet.




I thought there were distance limits to teleport?  In any case, I would (and do) impose distance limits on teleport and scrying.  As I said before, I really think the simulationist approach runs into problems almost immediately, and the question for me becomes:  "what should the house rules be in order to convincingly produce my current fantasy world".



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> For a diplomatic mission, nobles, yes. If something needs to get done, a normal adventuring party might be more effective.




If each of the nobles has levels in an adventuring character class, then there's no difference between them and an adventuring party except that the trust factor for the state is much higher.  In my campaign, not all nobles (by far) are of the Aristocrat character class.  Historically, persons referred to as "adventurers" (explorers, etc.) were almost always of the noble class.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Like assassination, acquisition of some key piece of the enemys magical power (I wage that a Mirror of Prowess might be one such thing), etc..




Their success would rely on their ability to escape detection though.  Given the right spells and mundane techniques for detecting invisible, for example, an "assassination" mission would be as risky as in real life, and would thus be subject to the same considerations.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> So I'd say the threat is decisively different than what a mercenary company would pose.




Yes, but that's not quite what I was saying the similarity was.  A mercenary company is a threat to the elite because they can kick down some nobleman's front door, storm in and kill him.  What's preventing that?  Some answers (among other things) are guards, steel doors, etc.

So it's essentially the same thing as the mercenary company in that the nobleman has to protect himself from magical dangers as well as mundane dangers.  Mercenary companies existed in the real world and were a threat to nobles - same as magic-weilding adventurers.  The only difference is the nature of the threat, and thus that the nature of the protections needed.  But I think the conditions under which mercenary companies and magic-using adventurers would be allowed to operate in any particular realm would be similar. 



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Most of the anti-teleport spells I've seen are tied to a location, for example.




But that's where I would say that the DnD game is not a simulation.  DnD is geared (in a metagamey way) towards providing a challenge to players in a "dungeon-like" environment.  A simlulationist version of DnD would very well include an anti-teleport spell whose target is an object or person.  Plus a whole bunch of anti-teleport spells, not just "you fail" type protections, but ones that allow the teportee to be rerouted to a dungeon, or return a doppelganger to their starting location etc.  The possibilities are nearly limitless, and once wizards were aware of the possiblities, the mere chance of death would be enough to make the "scry-teleport-disintegrate" option much less attractive.

As I've said though - you can't get there IMO with the Core Rules.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 5, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The value of providing a service does not change because you have magic available to you.




The ability to provide such a service at all is a big deal though. Many services can be provided by magic that would otherwise be virtually impossible for a middle-ages tech world to produce, and at a fairly reasonable price for most of them.



> _All that changes, as was pointed out earlier, is the ease by which such services can be made available.  Increasing the crop yields of your land isn't necessary if you control casters who can make food for your armies, which is both simpler and better (as it helps to prevent potential revolters from having the same advantages)._




Actually, it isn't simpler, because it is far less effective. A single spellcaster can increase your crop yields by a tremendous amount, whereas he cannot, on his own, produce enough food to make a difference. The combination of magic and labor is more powerful than magic alone.



> _It may be true that a ruler who didn't exploit magic in a D&D world would not be a ruler for long (although, strictly speaking, Hussar's and Numion's arguments about the demographics of D&D worlds being essentially hardwired might make even that conclusion doubtful), but it is far more true that a ruler who didn't control how magic was used in his domain -- and, to the extent of his power, in all domains he could -- would rule a smaller mud pond a lot sooner._




I would postulate that in any world in which magic was real, those who can use this power would end up in positions of authority in short order. In the real world, those who could use military force - usually meaning the ability to afford lots of armor, weapons, and horses, as well as the leisure time to train at arms - ended up ruling most of the world in the pre-gunpowder era. Conversely, in a magical world, where power is held by those who are good at casting spells, they would likely dominate the political landscape.

At the very least, those in power would be able to command the loyalty of those who wield such power - I suspect, for example, that nationalism would probably be a bigger deal than is was in our own middle-ages, specifically to appeal to the patriotic spirit of the spellcasters (and higher level members of other classes) in the various realms.



> _Obviously, you can create a reasonably logical account of a world with magitech.  You can make an equally reasonabaly logical account of a world without.  Which is the point -- neither is a more logical extrapolation of the D&D rules than the other.  They only vary in what they handwave, and what they ignore._




You can only posit a world in which magic isn't exploited if you ignore human nature, history, and politics in favor of very dubious assumptions.



> _In a real D&D magitech world, IMHO, all of the rulers would be immortal liches or quasi-divine beings that ruthlessly squashed lesser spellcasters when they reached a certain level.  And, quite likely, on some level, there would be a secret cartel that met to determine the fate of the world, and who fought meaningless wars with their pawns just for entertainment value._




Unlikely, because it would only require a single defector to render such a system void. Such a shaky political structure might arise, but it would likely collapse before any appreciable length of time elapsed.



> _In your more peaceful and good-natured magitech worlds, at the very least, most of the monstrous races would have gone the way of the lion in Europe or the smilodon.  Have you ever read Hong's account of the average D&D commoner?  Coordinated spellcasters would work harder to eliminate ankhegs once and for all than to build houses, IMHO._



_

Possibly. But then again, not everyone with the skills to be a big game hunter becomes one. Many people would rather live their lives in relative safety, making labor saving devices as opposed to hunting down things that have a very real chance of killing them._


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 5, 2006)

What's going on here is people raised in the 20th century looking at a D&D world and thinking "well, obviously, everyone growing up in this world would think BLANK."

The problem is that we, not having grown up in such a fantasy world, have no idea what BLANK is. We can extrapolate. There appears to be two general approaches: let's call them Assumption A and Assumption B.

*Assumption A:* Magic is basically regarded by the people in the world in the same way that most of us, raised in the 20th century as we were, regard technology. In other words: it's safe, reliable, and anyone can use it; it makes people's lives better, and so forth.

Under this assumption, magic is (logically) treated and used as technology. Maybe if it's abused, society would punish those who abuse it, but we, as products of a society where technology is widely used (and non-sentient - more on that below) blame the abuser in those cases, and not the technology itself. This group assumes that this attitude would dominate a world infused with magic in the same way.

*Assumption B:* Magic, for one reason or another, is not regarded in the same way that we, raised in the 20th century as we were, regard technology. This is usually because of a shift in one of the assumptions about the similarity between technology & magic. In other words, perhaps it's not safe, or not reliable, or not universally usable. Nobody denies it can make people's lives better, but it also clearly has the ability to make them worse.

Under Assumption B, magic is treated as we, as humans raised in the 20th century, might treat any "dangerous" technology. Nuclear weapons, biotechnology, self-aware robots, and any other sci-fi nightmare you can come up with fall into this category. I made a point earlier about the X-Men theory, which, concepts of alienation aside, could easily emulate the attitude that might prevail about magic and those who could use it.

The point is that neither of these assumptions is set in stone or more "correct" than the other. It seems to me that the more recent editions of D&D have emphasized assumption A to the exclusion of assumption B. And (and here's my original point) that the defaults of assumption A have been written into the rules.

For the record, I appreciate Eberron (and Ptolus) for their attempts to render logical conclusions to fantasy worlds. I'm not sure I can long enjoy a game in those settings, but that's me. Also, I'll confess that I've never been fond of D&D's divine/arcane magic dichotomy. Of all the things in the game, it's the one I find to be the most "D&Dish" of all. Thanks to the d20/OGL thing, I no longer have to be content with that dichotomy (which I freely admit is not something that's "new" to D&D).

The "Christmas Tree PC" thing is just something I wish was less "written in" to the Core Rules. Again, not something I can't change, I just wish it weren't so much a part of the game. And when I say "part of the game," here's what I mean. If you take away the character's juggling of their magical toys, the players have less "fun stuff" to do. Now, a game like _Iron Heroes_ fixes that by giving the PCs more toys to have fun with, but those are ADDITIONS to the game.

Basically, I'm asking why has so much of the game's "fun factor" been built around "magic management?" Is that what people want?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

> But, if "No magic shops" was a given in, say, 1e (as many contend), that is a limitation in the RAW that precludes selling magic items wholesale. Hence, if you don't include the RAW in what has to be logical, then the same observation applies to all editions, and again the argument collapses. After all, earlier you were concerned about the idea that previous editions had spells that could easily make magic items, yet the RAW assumed no magic item shops.




But, your assumption is that such items must be sold in a shop.  Why?  Why would a leader of a city be forced to go to a magic shop to buy continual light stones?  Why couldn't he simply deed some juicy land to a sympathetic church and reap the benefits?  I brought this up earlier and it got lost in the wash I think.  

One of the problems here is the assumption of power.  Feudal states were rarely so concentrated.  Sure there were kings and emperors, but, it was the guys a long way down the food chain that held the bulk of the power.  What Lord Bob does in his land was pretty much none of the business of the king so long as he paid his tithe.  

Sure, the king could likely squash any individual lord, but, collectively?  Not a chance.

The idea of such a centrally controlled state would REQUIRE magitech for communications purposes if nothing else.  When it takes days to travel 100 miles, the power of the king ends pretty quickly.  Simple geography defeats a monolithic government.  Even Rome, an extremely powerful state, had very little say in the day to day existence of any of the provinces.  China was more a series of independent states that paid lip service to an empire than anything resembling a modern nation state.

Without the means of communication and travel, you can't have a nation state.  The idea is really more anachronistic than magitech.



			
				Jon Snow said:
			
		

> The "Christmas Tree PC" thing is just something I wish was less "written in" to the Core Rules. Again, not something I can't change, I just wish it weren't so much a part of the game. And when I say "part of the game," here's what I mean. If you take away the character's juggling of their magical toys, the players have less "fun stuff" to do. Now, a game like Iron Heroes fixes that by giving the PCs more toys to have fun with, but those are ADDITIONS to the game.
> 
> Basically, I'm asking why has so much of the game's "fun factor" been built around "magic management?" Is that what people want?




I highly disagree with the assumptions here.  The idea that 3e characters are walking Christmas trees and that this is something new is very removed from my experience.

Let's take a 7th level character.  This is admitted by many to be the middle of the sweet spot for gaming.  A 7th level character by RAW is toting around 19k gp in equipment.  So, let's give him the following:


+1 armor 1000 gp
+1 shield 1000 gp
+1 sword 2000 gp
+1 bow 2000 gp
Gauntlets of ogre power 4000 gp
4 potions of whatever 1000 gp
Ring of Swimming 2500 gp
 Amulet of Health +2 4000 gp
1500 gp in sundry non-magical items - horse, armor etc.

Now, I'm probably a tad on the high side for this guy.  But, whatever.  Now, how much different is he from a fighter with no magic items?  He has 7 more hit points, +2 to hit, +2 to damage and +2 AC and a bonus to swim.

Big deal.  This simply isn't a big enough issue to worry about.  Actually, he doesn't have +2 to hit since the non magic fighter might have MW weapons.  

Really, who cares?  You could take away some or all of those items and it wouldn't make the slightest difference.  (Unless you start tossing in all DR/Magic bad guys  ).  It's just not that large of a difference.

At very high levels, 14 or 15 plus, then you see Christmas trees.  But, come on, these are the wahoo levels anyway.


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> In a real D&D magitech world, IMHO, all of the rulers would be immortal liches or quasi-divine beings that ruthlessly squashed lesser spellcasters when they reached a certain level.



Interestingly, this is the policy of both the githyanki Lich-Queen and Lolth, and pretty much describes them to a tee.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

I noticed that one too.  Seems like we're not covering too much new ground here.  

Then again, the idea of immortal/deific rulers isn't exactly a new one either.

I know there's a thread floating around here about politics in DnD which posits something very close to this as well.


----------



## rounser (Jul 6, 2006)

> Seems like we're not covering too much new ground here.



That's debatable.  I interpreted their policies as a way of stressing their tyranny and paranoia, and maybe the instability of their position, because in the larger D&D multiverse most of their ilk don't seem to need to implement such measures to stay in power.  It's curious that designers chose two female power figures for this too, unless the lich-queen was modelled after Lolth.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jul 6, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> You're avoiding a central issue here. In 1e and 2e, many of these creatures could not be physcially harmed without magic. In 3.x, if you hit them hard enough, you can hurt them, making magic weapons nice, but not totally necessary.




  half the creatures you listed could be hit with silver or iron, or blessed weapons. You rendered our own argument facetious.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 6, 2006)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Leveling characters in world with lots of magic and monsters has been D&D since the beginning.




I'd disagree with that--the 'lots of magic' part wasn't inherent until D&D3E. As evidenced by the fact that every game i actually played in during the 80s and 90s, as well as every one i had 2nd-hand knowledge of (i.e., knew the participants personally) had *way* less magic than D&D3e characters. As in, 7th-level characters with a +3 sword, a couple potions or scrolls, and one other minor item--and that was it. One 8th-level character's only magic items were a wand of wonder and a +2 dagger, and that wasn't atypical. I'm sure there were games with more magic items, but the rules didn't assume that, like they do now. And, whether because the rules were loose enough that it didn't matter, or assumed lower magic item levels, we never had any balance problems in such games--while using monsters that were at the appropriate level for the characters.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> That's debatable.  I interpreted their policies as a way of stressing their tyranny and paranoia, and maybe the instability of their position, because in the larger D&D multiverse most of their ilk don't seem to need to implement such measures to stay in power.  It's curious that designers chose two female power figures for this too, unless the lich-queen was modelled after Lolth.




I don't know.  Both Lolth and the Lich Queen make their first appearance in the same source, the original Fiend Folio, so I have no idea how much one influenced the other.  My gut would say not much, but, that's entirely a guess.

A lot of this is going to change drastically from setting to setting as well.  I was just reading the opening chapters of the Scarred Lands setting and they have a different take on it as well.  The sorcerers came first, then the wizards.  The wizards then take over much of Scarn, but get smacked down by the Titans.  However, before that happens, its the wizards and their research which bring the Gods to Scarn.  Wizards are seen as part of the Gods and sorcs as Titanspawn.  That's a simplified version, but, not terribly inaccurate.  

As the Titanswar ends, there is so much devastation that there just hasn't been time to rebuild the magical infrastructure.  But, the history of SL is replete with very high magic civilizations.  Essentially, it was mostly due to the existence of the Titans that no single empire lasted too long.  Every time they built up, one or another Titan would squash it.  But, since the spell casters kept so many alive during the very tough times, spell casters were never seen as the enemy.

SL takes a rather Steven Erikson approach to organized wizardry.  Most are co-opted by the local regimes.  Interestingly enough, in that series, the job of war wizards isn't to kill the enemy, but rather to protect their troops from the enemy wizards.  If the enemy has no wizards, the fight is over when the cadre mages obliterate the enemy.


----------



## Numion (Jul 6, 2006)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I'd disagree with that--the 'lots of magic' part wasn't inherent until D&D3E. As evidenced by the fact that every game i actually played in during the 80s and 90s, as well as every one i had 2nd-hand knowledge of (i.e., knew the participants personally) had *way* less magic than D&D3e characters. As in, 7th-level characters with a +3 sword, a couple potions or scrolls, and one other minor item--and that was it. One 8th-level character's only magic items were a wand of wonder and a +2 dagger, and that wasn't atypical. I'm sure there were games with more magic items, but the rules didn't assume that, like they do now.




Why were the TSR modules then loaded with magic items to a far greater tune than 3E ones? I'm sure there were groups with lower level of magic items, but at least my highest level AD&D character run out of space on the character sheet, yes, because of magic items. 

In my 3E games there are less items because players like to trade and sell most of the stuff to upgrade their main guns or protective items. (That is annoying in itself, because I as a DM would like them to keep all the kewl trinkets I have in my great wisdom placed in the adventure.)



> And, whether because the rules were loose enough that it didn't matter, or assumed lower magic item levels, we never had any balance problems in such games--while using monsters that were at the appropriate level for the characters.




By definition monsters of appropriate level are .. well, appropriate and balanced against the group.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I'd disagree with that--the 'lots of magic' part wasn't inherent until D&D3E. As evidenced by the fact that every game i actually played in during the 80s and 90s, as well as every one i had 2nd-hand knowledge of (i.e., knew the participants personally) had *way* less magic than D&D3e characters. As in, 7th-level characters with a +3 sword, a couple potions or scrolls, and one other minor item--and that was it. One 8th-level character's only magic items were a wand of wonder and a +2 dagger, and that wasn't atypical. I'm sure there were games with more magic items, but the rules didn't assume that, like they do now. And, whether because the rules were loose enough that it didn't matter, or assumed lower magic item levels, we never had any balance problems in such games--while using monsters that were at the appropriate level for the characters.




Ignoring for a second the published modules, the reason such campaigns worked is twofold.  First off, the campaigns ended around 9th level, before the wizards really hit their stride.  Secondly, it worked because the DM selected monsters that would work and ignored ones that wouldn't.  Same as can be done in 3e.

Although, I would point out that a 7th level character in 3e could ONLY own a +3 sword.  No horse, no armor.  Just a sword.  He's only good for 19 000 gp and a +3 sword is 18 000.  Kinda blows your arguement out of the water there.

8th level character 27000 gp.  +2 dagger 4000 gp, Rod of Wonder 12000 gp.  So, yup, that one is at half wealth.  

I guess one is and one isn't.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The ability to provide such a service at all is a big deal though. Many services can be provided by magic that would otherwise be virtually impossible for a middle-ages tech world to produce, and at a fairly reasonable price for most of them.




Let us not forget that, strictly going by RAW, each 1st level spell costs 100 gp.  Even though the spell itself may not be that difficult, you are paying for the specialist (not unlike an auto mechanic).



> Actually, it isn't simpler, because it is far less effective. A single spellcaster can increase your crop yields by a tremendous amount, whereas he cannot, on his own, produce enough food to make a difference. The combination of magic and labor is more powerful than magic alone.




True.  But that combination isn't simpler because it requires you to exert a much greater control over both your spellcasters and your population.  You can't simply keep food producers in the barracks if they have to be out among the crops.  Then you have to consider why they don't simply desert and become adventurers, in a D&D world anyway.  There have to be some pretty heavy incentives.  Then you have to consider how to prevent them taking over the farmlands.  Somebody once said that "in a magical world, where power is held by those who are good at casting spells, they would likely dominate the political landscape."  I extraoplate from that that "those who could use military force - usually meaning the ability to afford lots of armor, weapons, and horses, as well as the leisure time to train at arms" will therefore have to take steps to prevent the spellcasters from "ruling most of the world".

Also, what is easier:  The spellcaster making food for himself only, or the spellcaster helping everyone else out?  History teaches that people tend to do the easiest thing unless they can see a clear-cut advantage for doing otherwise.  Very few people make true "labor saving devices" (this is certainly not the efficient future that 50's SF promised us!) but many people want to exploit the labor of others.



> At the very least, those in power would be able to command the loyalty of those who wield such power - I suspect, for example, that nationalism would probably be a bigger deal than is was in our own middle-ages, specifically to appeal to the patriotic spirit of the spellcasters (and higher level members of other classes) in the various realms.




In the real world, nationalism is a big deal because individuals cannot protect themselves against a hostile world.  By banding together into communities, people are able to protect themselves from other individuals and, to a lesser extent, from other communities.  But power in a D&D world going strictly by the RAW is not at all like power in the real world.  

In a D&D world, power rests with individuals in a way it never has in the real world.  A spellcaster isn't the equivilent of a man with a gun.  A spellcaster isn't the equivilent of a nuclear arsenal.  A spellcaster that can cast beneficial spells has the potential to learn any spell on his list, and there is no way to control what spells she learns.  Moreover, as she gains levels, she is only going to become more powerful and harder to control.  She will learn to cast spells without speech, or movement, or materials.  You won't know what she's casting, or when.  You might feel warmly toward her, and you won't know whether that's because she's helped you so many times or because you're under her influence.  She says she can only cast low-level spells (and thus can't do what you fear), but you have no way to know if she's telling the truth.  Her other friend, the other spellcaster, says he detects no lies, but you know that those spells can be countered.....And what if they are in it together?  Just how many ranks of Spellcraft and Knowledge [Arcana] does the average village headmaster have, anyway?

Jump a step up in government, and the same problems occur, just on a greater scale.  Now you _know_ (or think you know) that your friend the spellcaster can cast the spells you fear most.  Those magical bracers that he claims protect you....do they also charm you to his will?  Are you sure?  That new ring you got for your birthday....doesn't detect as magic, but that could be a spell effect, too.

Etc., etc., etc.

If it is true that the mindset of a 12th level NPC spellcaster won't be that different from the mindset of a 12th level PC spellcaster, most worlds will not have strong nationalism.  They will have rampant individualism, disregard for authority, disregard for social consequence, disregard for taxes, and, eventually, a coup of local government.



> You can only posit a world in which magic isn't exploited if you ignore human nature, history, and politics in favor of very dubious assumptions.




I find that a *very* dubious statement.

Magic in the D&D RAW is unlike anything found in nature, and unlike anything real world history and politics have had to deal with.  The only example worlds we can describe are fictional, and 3e D&D worlds are more like superhero comics than most fantasy novels.  In fact, they employ the same conceit:  the villians do not take over the world because the heroes always arise to stop them; the heroes don't change the world significantly with their vast powers because they are always too busy with the villians.

Of course, then you can examine D&D worlds, and the games that occur within them.  Are the PCs very nationalistic?  Unless artificially constrained by the DM, do they use their powers only for good?  Do they kill people and rob them of their stuff?  You can only posit a world in which magic is exploited _by the masses_ if you ignore PC behavior in favor of very dubious assumptions.



> Unlikely, because it would only require a single defector to render such a system void. Such a shaky political structure might arise, but it would likely collapse before any appreciable length of time elapsed.




Oddly enough, you are forgetting the availability of magic.  Any defector could be detected before the defection occurred.  Of course, your opponent would attempt to counter the detection.  But you could counter that.

The system would not be stable _so far as its effects on the world were concerned_ but it could do very nicely for those ultra-powerful beings.

RC


----------



## boredgremlin (Jul 6, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Why were the TSR modules then loaded with magic items to a far greater tune than 3E ones? I'm sure there were groups with lower level of magic items, but at least my highest level AD&D character run out of space on the character sheet, yes, because of magic items.
> 
> In my 3E games there are less items because players like to trade and sell most of the stuff to upgrade their main guns or protective items. (That is annoying in itself, because I as a DM would like them to keep all the kewl trinkets I have in my great wisdom placed in the adventure.)
> 
> ...





  Modules??? I played AD&D for 5 years and never touched a single module. They are just lazy DMing. The rules in 2e worked fine with lower magic, if adventure writers messed with that for your games then your blame lies with the individual writers and not with the system.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, your assumption is that such items must be sold in a shop.  Why?  Why would a leader of a city be forced to go to a magic shop to buy continual light stones?  Why couldn't he simply deed some juicy land to a sympathetic church and reap the benefits?  I brought this up earlier and it got lost in the wash I think.




That isn't a bad point, and there is nothing wrong with setting up a world that way.  The assumption that the magic of the gods should be used to light the streets might not wash with the clerics, however.  That they can have light at any time in the abbey is a statement of their power.  Few people with power share that power unless it is to gain significantly more power.  Which begs the question of why the city leader would give up the land for those stones when a curfew and watch patrols are cheaper.



> One of the problems here is the assumption of power.  Feudal states were rarely so concentrated.




I agree.  I also agree that things would centralize in an actual magitech world due to the availability of communications and travel magitechnology.  However, it doesn't require a magitech world being completely set up for a group of high level characters to achieve the same results.

The point is not that your assumptions create an invalid world; the point is that they are not the only assumptions that can be used, nor are they necessarily the most "logical" set of assumptions.

RC

EDIT:  Hussar, I think that there is little doubt that the "lots of magic" paradigm is more inherent in 3e than in previous editions.  Even when you consider the loot in modules, you need to consider that it was never intended that the average party would find all of it -- hence the appearance of the term "Greyhawking" a dungeon, as a direct attempt to overcome the designer's attempt to hide loot where you will not find it.

I'd rather that the designers of 3e set a lower magic level as the default, but I agree that this is easily modified.  What having a high-magic default does, that I do not care for, is set an expectation of high-magic.  Again, though, this is easily modified.

RC


----------



## Numion (Jul 6, 2006)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Modules??? I played AD&D for 5 years and never touched a single module. They are just lazy DMing. The rules in 2e worked fine with lower magic, if adventure writers messed with that for your games then your blame lies with the individual writers and not with the system.




Two points:

1) Whether _you_ used modules or not is irrelevant. For many new DMs those modules showed how adventures should be made. They establish a baseline. Which, in 1E and 2E, was very montyhaulish.

2) Lazy DMing? IMO modules are also for DMs with an actual life. You know, who don't have the time to construct proper adventures. Sometimes life gets into way of gaming. Premade adventures can alleviate that somewhat.


----------



## Numion (Jul 6, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> EDIT:  Hussar, I think that there is little doubt that the "lots of magic" paradigm is more inherent in 3e than in previous editions.  Even when you consider the loot in modules, you need to consider that it was never intended that the average party would find all of it -- hence the appearance of the term "Greyhawking" a dungeon, as a direct attempt to overcome the designer's attempt to hide loot where you will not find it.




Not directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway 

Quasquetons analysis of ToEE revealed that only a pittance of the full loot was 'Greyhawked'. Great majority was in plain sight. 

Myth - Busted!


----------



## Psion (Jul 6, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Not directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway
> 
> Quasquetons analysis of ToEE revealed that only a pittance of the full loot was 'Greyhawked'. Great majority was in plain sight.
> 
> Myth - Busted!




I deny your reality and substitute my own!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Not directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway
> 
> Quasquetons analysis of ToEE revealed that only a pittance of the full loot was 'Greyhawked'. Great majority was in plain sight.
> 
> Myth - Busted!




As much as I respect Q, I haven't read his analysis (link?), and I have read posts in which people take issue with his base assumptions (again, though, without specifics, so who knows?).  My experience was and is that most players don't find the majority of treasure, even when it is in plain sight.  YMMV.  I recently ran the caves portion of Keep on the Borderlands, converted to 3.X, and the vast, vast majority of treasure went unclaimed.

(In fact, the PCs stopped to rest often enough that, frequently, they would kill off the warriors and allow the women and children to escape with the loot while they rested.)

RC


----------



## Numion (Jul 6, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As much as I respect Q, I haven't read his analysis (link?), and I have read posts in which people take issue with his base assumptions (again, though, without specifics, so who knows?).  My experience was and is that most players don't find the majority of treasure, even when it is in plain sight.  YMMV.  I recently ran the caves portion of Keep on the Borderlands, converted to 3.X, and the vast, vast majority of treasure went unclaimed.




Um .. let me think, it's not the current one, but one of the older analysis threads. I don't have search. 

About his assumptions .. if the current thread is any indication his assumptions are brought in to questioning, but it seems he's going easy on the previous editions. Like no xp from magic items or loot, while the opposition brings up pretty minor adjustments.

But still, some obfuscation is better than none, right?   



> (In fact, the PCs stopped to rest often enough that, frequently, they would kill off the warriors and allow the women and children to escape with the loot while they rested.)




I'm glad to hear you're not a wuss DM  Still, this is kind of a peculiar MO for an adventuring group. Clearly they don't deserve the loot.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

> Then you have to consider why they don't simply desert and become adventurers, in a D&D world anyway. There have to be some pretty heavy incentives. Then you have to consider how to prevent them taking over the farmlands.




Actually, no I don7t have to consider this.  Since this is a RAW discussion, this factor doesn't enter into the equation.  They don't defect since the demographics rules say they don't.

There is a significant difference here between applying the RAW and questioning the assumptions that the RAW are built upon.  I have no interests in the latter.  It's not an issue here for me.  

The question on the table is how do the factors described in RAW affect a world?  Sure, you can change the RAW which will then change the results of how those rules affect the setting.  Of course you can do that.  But, that's not the issue.  The point here is that we are looking at how the rules of the setting as defined by the RAW affect that setting.

To use a real world example.  Take any experiment.  In that experiment, you must control almost all the variables (or as many as you can) and then see what happens when you change a small number of things.  If you don't control the variables, then the experiment will fail.  You must have a baseline.

In DnD, that baseline is the RAW.  You can change that baseline, I'm not implying that you can't.  But, if you do, then that changed baseline is now your baseline.  You can't change the baseline and then apply it back to the old system.  That's cheating.  

So, back to the original point, now that I've meandered quite a bit.  It doesn't matter WHY the peasants stay on the farm.  It doesn't matter WHY they don't take up adventuring.  The physics of the setting - the RAW - states that they do so.

Now, a point RC brings up is very valid.  A spell is actually not 100 gp.  A spell is caster level*spell level*10.  Plus, of course, any raw materials and the like.  This pretty much takes it out of the hands of the vast majority of the populace and places it pretty squarely in the aristocracy.  So, why isn't the aristocracy going to utilize it?

RC claims that the aristocracy must be concerned about the casters growing in power.  However, that again is changing the baseline.  We don't have to worry about that since the demographics show that this isn't true.  Casters are actually pretty darn rare and high level casters even moreso.  YOu need at least a hamlet  to find a cleric of maximum 6th level (druid as well, however, it is unlikely) and a village (minimum 400 people) before you can find a 5th level wizard (again, fairly unlikely).  According to the demographics, you actually can't randomly find a wizard over 10th level and that's in a major city.

The RAW equates a fairly low magic setting actually.  With a limit of 10th level wizzies, finding someone to make you a magic sword is going to be very tricky.  Finding people who are going to be able to single handedly take over the country is even more difficult.  A 10th level wizard is powerful, true, but, not that powerful.

However, Even in a hamlet, I can find 3rd level wizards and clerics without too much difficulty.  Granted, the majority of the population does not live in hamlets or larger, but rather in smaller places, but, all I need for my purposes - low level, permanent magic - is a third level cleric or wizard.

The RAW provides me with that.  It does not provide RC with his nation toppling mages.  Yes, the RAW also states that the DM is free to add in higher level NPC's.  Of course that's fine.  However, that's going to vary wildly from campaign to campaign and is beyond the scope of my point.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

> That isn't a bad point, and there is nothing wrong with setting up a world that way. The assumption that the magic of the gods should be used to light the streets might not wash with the clerics, however. That they can have light at any time in the abbey is a statement of their power. Few people with power share that power unless it is to gain significantly more power. Which begs the question of why the city leader would give up the land for those stones when a curfew and watch patrols are cheaper




Churches never trade upon their holy might for political and capital gain?  I'm not sure I buy that arguement too much.  From the noble's point of view, I give you the Parthenon.  Or any of a bazillion cathedrals in Europe.  Angkor Wat.  There are rather a lot of temporal, secular leaders out there who have done exactly what I've said in many, many cultures all over the world.  It's not exactly a stretch.

Besides, considering the light is permanent, there is no possible way that it is more expensive than the watch in the long term.


----------



## edbonny (Jul 6, 2006)

CF said:
			
		

> "armamentist"




Couldn't find this word in my "dictionominary"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Um .. let me think, it's not the current one, but one of the older analysis threads. I don't have search.
> 
> About his assumptions .. if the current thread is any indication his assumptions are brought in to questioning, but it seems he's going easy on the previous editions. Like no xp from magic items or loot, while the opposition brings up pretty minor adjustments.
> 
> But still, some obfuscation is better than none, right?




Sorry, Numion, I'm not following you here.  I cannot comment on Q's analysis without reading it, nor can I comment on the value of other's comments about it.  I just don't have enough information.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

Then wonder no more  It's really worth the read even if it does have some serious assumptions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Actually, no I don7t have to consider this.  Since this is a RAW discussion, this factor doesn't enter into the equation.  They don't defect since the demographics rules say they don't.




Actually, I would contend that any analysis of a world that was going to be claimed to be "logical" must take into account why the demographics are as they are.  The assumptions that the RAW are built upon are obviously pertainent to interpreting the RAW.  While we might question how the factors described in RAW affect a world, it is equally important (if we want to claim that our result is "more logical") that we examine how the world causes the factors described in the RAW.

In other words, I contend that social factors in the game world would have to give rise to the demographics found in the RAW without using the RAW itself as the causitive if you are claiming that the end result is more logical.

From this standpoin, WHY the peasants stay on the farm, WHY they don't take up adventuring, and WHY they don't simply take PC classes is very, very relevant.  If the RAW, as the "physics of the setting" states that NPCs follow certain demographics but PCs do not, then there must be a "physics" distinction between NPCs and PCs.  The minute you make that claim, you cannot claim that any behavior of NPCs has a real-world analogue or is more logical than any other claim.

Others, of course, have argued (correctly, I believe) from the basis that the RAW includes both the "physics" of the setting and the visible effects of those physics.  IMHO, RAW demographics is part of the latter, not the former.  It is the effect of something not made explicit which is going on in the setting.

In this case the aristocracy must be concerned about the casters growing in power, because rather than being "physics" the demographics are the effects of standard D&D societies combined with the "physics" of the D&D world.  The characters in that world are well aware that making changes to what is occuring in the setting is changing the baseline (though not the physics).  Otherwise, if no assumption within the RAW is malleable from within the game world, what is the point of the game?  

Or, to put it another way, the cost of a spell is based at least in part upon the rarity of the item.  So, we can place a per-RAW price on those Continual Light stones.  However, in a magitech world, the number of those stones can only increase (since they are permanent) which means, logically, that the price per stone should eventually decrease.  But, by the "logic" that states that everything in the RAW is part of the physics of the setting _the price will never decrease._  Either that, or you find yourself claiming that the social baseline can be changed in some ways but not in others, which, again, is clearly illogical.



> The RAW equates a fairly low magic setting actually.  With a limit of 10th level wizzies, finding someone to make you a magic sword is going to be very tricky.  Finding people who are going to be able to single handedly take over the country is even more difficult.  A 10th level wizard is powerful, true, but, not that powerful.
> 
> However, Even in a hamlet, I can find 3rd level wizards and clerics without too much difficulty.  Granted, the majority of the population does not live in hamlets or larger, but rather in smaller places, but, all I need for my purposes - low level, permanent magic - is a third level cleric or wizard.




But, since we now know that the price of magic items does not vary (so as to maintain our baseline), we also know that they cannot be produced in any large amounts.  Therefore, going simply by the logic of the RAW, no magitech worlds exist.

Unless you change the baseline.

Which, as you say, is cheating, at least as far as this thought experiment is concerned, and therefore beyond the scope of my point.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Churches never trade upon their holy might for political and capital gain?  I'm not sure I buy that arguement too much.  From the noble's point of view, I give you the Parthenon.  Or any of a bazillion cathedrals in Europe.  Angkor Wat.  There are rather a lot of temporal, secular leaders out there who have done exactly what I've said in many, many cultures all over the world.  It's not exactly a stretch.




Magic in the D&D RAW is unlike anything found in nature, and unlike anything real world history and politics have had to deal with. The only example worlds we can describe are fictional, and 3e D&D worlds are more like superhero comics than most fantasy novels. In fact, they employ the same conceit: the villians do not take over the world because the heroes always arise to stop them; the heroes don't change the world significantly with their vast powers because they are always too busy with the villians.

Of course, then you can examine D&D worlds, and the games that occur within them. Are the PCs very nationalistic? Unless artificially constrained by the DM, do they use their powers only for good? Do they kill people and rob them of their stuff? You can only posit a world in which magic is exploited by the masses if you ignore PC behavior in favor of very dubious assumptions.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

> But, since we now know that the price of magic items does not vary (so as to maintain our baseline), we also know that they cannot be produced in any large amounts. Therefore, going simply by the logic of the RAW, no magitech worlds exist.




Interesting point.  The RAW itself is self limiting with regards to magic item creation.

Of course that assumes that you want to add actual market factors into the RAW.  Since the RAW actually contains no market factors, nor any mechanics for determining market factors, you have actually stepped beyond RAW to make your point.

The price of a light stone does not increase or decrease.  Ever.  Not by RAW.  A spell costs caster level*2*spell level.  It doesn't matter, by RAW, if there is only one caster on the entire planet or if every second person can do this.  The price is fixed.  In order to change that price, you have to step outside of RAW.



> Actually, I would contend that any analysis of a world that was going to be claimed to be "logical" must take into account why the demographics are as they are.




I disagree.  I don't have to question the baseline assumptions in order for the system to work logically.  The logic of the system is defined by the RAW.  To discuss the system, I don't have to concern myself with why it is the way it is, only how that state is affected by other elements within that system.

In other words, the demographics rules can create a setting.  Within that setting, there are magical spells and those who can use them.  The numbers of those people are also defined by the demographics rules.  In other words, they are given within certain parameters.  For the setting to be logical, I need only follow the parameters set out by the demographics rules.  Since the magic spells rules and the class rules are actually distinct from campaign creation, in that they have no impact on the distribution of classes within the setting, I don't have to be concerned about their impact on the creation of the setting.

However, since these spells and classes exist within the framework of the setting, I should be concerned about how they would interact with the the people living in such a setting.  Once the setting is created, using the framework given in the demographics rules and elsewhere, then it becomes logical to examine the interaction of the pieces within that system.

Yes, we can certainly question the logic of the system itself, but, to do so invalidates the RAW and reduces the discussion to competing viewpoints.  If we cannot start from a common baseline, then we cannot have a logical discussion.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2006)

A facinating read RC - take a gander through at Fusangite's comments.  I think you would enjoy.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 6, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Magic in the D&D RAW is unlike anything found in nature, and unlike anything real world history and politics have had to deal with.




Any two things are similar and dissimilar logically.  IMO magic in DnD is like technology in a few basic, important ways.  Also, the real world has had magic that people believe existed, and their reactions can be informative as to how people in a DnD world might react (one example is that IMO, people DID treat magic like technology - I'm not sure they would have appreciated the difference as much as modern people try to).

And also, history is full of situations where individuals or groups were a threat to the state.  Does it really matter whether that threat stems from a fireball or a bazooka?  Sure, there might be some superficial differences in the "technologies" of modern vs. magic, but one could argue that the overall psychology would be similar.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2006)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Any two things are similar and dissimilar logically.  IMO magic in DnD is like technology in a few basic, important ways.




Sure.  But on a more basic level, magic is inherent in individuals.  When you say "Does it really matter whether that threat stems from a fireball or a bazooka?" the answer is obvious:  Can you disarm the spellcaster?  We put a lot of stock in preventing average citizens from walking around with bazookas.  What I am suggesting is that a D&D government would do the same.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I disagree. I don't have to question the baseline assumptions in order for the system to work logically. The logic of the system is defined by the RAW. To discuss the system, I don't have to concern myself with why it is the way it is, only how that state is affected by other elements within that system.




Either normal socio-political effects occur in D&D worlds or they do not.  If they do, then it is reasonable to assume that the demographics in the RAW are the result of normal socio-political effects.  In this case, we can extrapolate from the demographics some idea of what might cause the demographics.  If normal socio-political effects do not occur, conversely, then we can say nothing from a logical standpoint.  Everything that we might say is pure speculation.

If normal socio-political effects occur, we can look at the non-varying price of magic items and claim that therefore there cannot be a ready market or supply.  If normal socio-political effects do not occur, we can say whatever we please with an equal chance of being correct.

If normal socio-political effects occur, we can look at the demographics and say that there must be forces at work that prevent the domination of spellcasters.  If normal socio-political do not occur, we can say whatever we please with an equal chance of being correct.

Any way you slice it, it comes up peanuts.  A D&D world in which magitech exists is neither more, nor less, logical than a world in which it does not.  Both can be equally reasonably extrapolated from the RAW.

Game worlds have internal logic, but none of this has anything to do with some specific and mandatory logical extrapolation from the RAW .


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2006)

> Any way you slice it, it comes up peanuts. A D&D world in which magitech exists is neither more, nor less, logical than a world in which it does not. Both can be equally reasonably extrapolated from the RAW.
> 
> Game worlds have internal logic, but none of this has anything to do with some specific and mandatory logical extrapolation from the RAW .




I'd agree with that except for the last bit.  The logic of game worlds are mandated by the RAW (of that setting).  It doesn't have to be any sort of realistic in the real world sense, it just has to work with the dictated logic of the RAW.

I think logical is possibly just as bad as mature as a descriptor.  I think you do as well RC.

My English is failing me.  What is a word for something that evokes a willing suspension of disbelief?  SODable?  This is the effect I'm going for.  

To me, it's extemely difficult to ignore the elephant in the corner that is low level permanent magics.  As was mentioned, these exist solely for metagame reasons.  That's true.  The only reason to have permanent light sources is to reduce the PITA factor of dungeon crawling.  However, again, that reason doesn't have to be examined.  We only have to worry about how it affects the setting, not why it's there in the first place.

Perhaps that is what's tripping us up here.  I'm not terribly concerned with the why.  Why something is in the game world, or why that game world looks like it does doesn't really concern me.  It's a given.  However, my concern is given a particular starting point (RAW demographics ((LOL, typoed this as demongraphics))) *how* is that setting affected by the presence of cheap permanent spells?

I think Gizmo33 makes a good point.  The people of Rome certainly didn't think magic didn't work.  They believed that it did and acted accordingly.  Those leaders spending the equivalent of millions of dollars on a fingerbone of some dead important guy didn't do so because they thought it was a hoax.  They acted as if magic worked.  There are so many real world examples of societies that believe in magic and spend vast resources fueling that belief.  Why should the provable existence of magic change that?

The question is raised of controlling those who cast spells.  Churches work extremely well for this.  Mage guilds are certainly a solid part of the genre.  Both work pretty well in controlling magic.  Dragonlance featured wizard police that killed unlicensed mages for example.  

I do agree that there would be SOME sort of control placed over spell casters.  They would not likely be allowed to operate in a power vacuum, at least, not for very long.  Would this be state controlled?  Possibly.  But, then again, guilds work as a protection both for and against the state.  As do churches.  It is possible to have the numbers of spell casters as dictated by the RAW without having totalitarian states cutting out the tongues of everyone with magic abilities.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 7, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> My English is failing me.  What is a word for something that evokes a willing suspension of disbelief?  SODable?  This is the effect I'm going for.




I think the word you are looking for is "verisimilitude."


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 7, 2006)

Excuse me, but the equation for pricing the fabrication of magical items assumes this is the overall cost in components, materials and various items used to build the magical trinket, right? Wouldn't these prices vary from nation to nation or from world to world, given the rarity or not of materials, availability of spellcasters and specialists (such as alchemists, smiths and jewelers) and basic services needed. 

Where in the RAW does it state that basic prices may NOT vary at all from place to place, or under specific circumstances?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I think the word you are looking for is "verisimilitude."




Oh man, I REALLY gotta go home for a while.  I'm losing my bloody English.  Spend too much time teaching 5 year olds and you start to talk like them.    

Yeah, that's the word though.  I'm not terribly concerned about RAW demographics since they seem "close enough to work" for me.  However, as I said, ignoring the elephant in the corner is something of a breaker for me.  I can live with it, and I certainly do in many games.  But, when I stand back and think about it, I can't see why it shouldn't be more pervasive than it is.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> My experience was and is that most players don't find the majority of treasure, even when it is in plain sight.




In my experience, this was very common in the more character oriented or storytelling games.  Taking all the treasure, searching for every nail in the building, putting it in a pile, and casting Detect Magic seemed out-of-character, and didn't advance the stories.  So, the players tended to resist those sorts of things and missed a lot of treasure that way.

Also, groups that were goal oriented tended to miss loads of treasure as well.  Go in - accomplish mission (usually defeating the BBEG) - get out.  Those players missed a lot of treasure because they weren't interested in searching every single door, book, dumbwaiter, etc.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Excuse me, but the equation for pricing the fabrication of magical items assumes this is the overall cost in components, materials and various items used to build the magical trinket, right? Wouldn't these prices vary from nation to nation or from world to world, given the rarity or not of materials, availability of spellcasters and specialists (such as alchemists, smiths and jewelers) and basic services needed.
> 
> Where in the RAW does it state that basic prices may NOT vary at all from place to place, or under specific circumstances?




Under every magic item in the RAW it states a listed price.  That price is not variable.  There are no mechanics for varying that price.  By RAW, all prices are absolutely fixed.

Now, I agree that this is utterly ridiculous and the first thing I would do when designing a campaign would be to chuck in what is available where and for what price.  That's fine.  However, in doing so, I am changing the RAW.

There is no need to say that the prices may not vary.  Since there is no mechanic for determining the variance, there is no means for the prices to vary.


----------



## Numion (Jul 7, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> In my experience, this was very common in the more character oriented or storytelling games.  Taking all the treasure, searching for every nail in the building, putting it in a pile, and casting Detect Magic seemed out-of-character, and didn't advance the stories.  So, the players tended to resist those sorts of things and missed a lot of treasure that way.
> 
> Also, groups that were goal oriented tended to miss loads of treasure as well.  Go in - accomplish mission (usually defeating the BBEG) - get out.  Those players missed a lot of treasure because they weren't interested in searching every single door, book, dumbwaiter, etc.




That's strange talk coming from "The World's Greatest Thief"   

This is of course anecdotal, but I've never played in a group that didn't loot. Our group looted even in Cyberpunk 2020. And Twilight 2000 (that makes sense though, everything being scarce and all). And Traveller.

Your argument carries no weight in 1E vs. 3E comparisons though, because the same arguments can be made for 3E.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 7, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Under every magic item in the RAW it states a listed price.  That price is not variable.  There are no mechanics for varying that price.  By RAW, all prices are absolutely fixed.
> 
> Now, I agree that this is utterly ridiculous and the first thing I would do when designing a campaign would be to chuck in what is available where and for what price.  That's fine.  However, in doing so, I am changing the RAW.
> 
> There is no need to say that the prices may not vary.  Since there is no mechanic for determining the variance, there is no means for the prices to vary.




Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to actually join in this variant of a favoured discussion between you and Raven Crowking (even if it's always a pleasure to read a civilized discussion between two disparate points of view  ), and I don't know if this little piece is included in the 3.5 DMG, but in my good old 3.0 DMG, it says on page 243 in the box _Behind the Curtain: Magic Item gold piece values_:
"Use good sense when assigning prices, along with the items here as examples."
It's actually the last sentence in that box.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me that sounds like the authors are telling me "If you want the components of a _Wand of Fireballs_ to be extra rare in your campaign, you're fully justified to up the costs for that item as well." They actually mention that a few formulas cannot possibly cover the whole range of different cost factors for all the diverse magical items presented in D&D. So I'd say they do allow some leeway in the cost factors of magical items, and thus their market prices.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2006)

> Maybe I'm wrong, but to me that sounds like the authors are telling me "If you want the components of a Wand of Fireballs to be extra rare in your campaign, you're fully justified to up the costs for that item as well." They actually mention that a few formulas cannot possibly cover the whole range of different cost factors for all the diverse magical items presented in D&D. So I'd say they do allow some leeway in the cost factors of magical items, and thus their market prices.




Heh, I do enjoy a civilized convo.  LOL

I would point out though a couple of things.  The spell pricelist in the PHB carries no such caveat, which is more what I've been talking about anyway.  Permanent magic items isn't what I'm after.  It's the effects of permanent low level spells.  Also, the value of gold in DND is absolute.  It becomes difficult to adjust for any sort of market factor when the value of the money never changes.  Thirdly, the price for all equipment and spell components in the PHB are not subject to change either.

Even if magic items vary wildly in value, by RAW, none of the spells will.  A country where pearls are very rare will simply use smaller pearls to power an Identify spell.  After all, all I need is 100 gp in pearl.  It says nothing about how big that pearl, or even the quality of that pearl.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, it's extemely difficult to ignore the elephant in the corner that is low level permanent magics.  As was mentioned, these exist solely for metagame reasons.  That's true.  The only reason to have permanent light sources is to reduce the PITA factor of dungeon crawling.  However, again, that reason doesn't have to be examined.  We only have to worry about how it affects the setting, not why it's there in the first place.




Well, the elephant in the corner is exactly the same as D&D demographics.  Those peasants don't choose PC classes for the same reason that those casters don't choose continual light or continual flame.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> That's strange talk coming from "The World's Greatest Thief"
> 
> This is of course anecdotal, but I've never played in a group that didn't loot. Our group looted even in Cyberpunk 2020. And Twilight 2000 (that makes sense though, everything being scarce and all). And Traveller.
> 
> Your argument carries no weight in 1E vs. 3E comparisons though, because the same arguments can be made for 3E.




Not only that, but the players I was talking about would think that they had done a good job looting, too!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to actually join in this variant of a favoured discussion between you and Raven Crowking (even if it's always a pleasure to read a civilized discussion between two disparate points of view  ), and I don't know if this little piece is included in the 3.5 DMG, but in my good old 3.0 DMG, it says on page 243 in the box _Behind the Curtain: Magic Item gold piece values_:
> "Use good sense when assigning prices, along with the items here as examples."
> It's actually the last sentence in that box.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but to me that sounds like the authors are telling me "If you want the components of a _Wand of Fireballs_ to be extra rare in your campaign, you're fully justified to up the costs for that item as well." They actually mention that a few formulas cannot possibly cover the whole range of different cost factors for all the diverse magical items presented in D&D. So I'd say they do allow some leeway in the cost factors of magical items, and thus their market prices.




The point is not that you cannot make changes to the prices; the point is that the RAW _must be altered to circumstance_ if you are going to use real world examples and socio-politics or economics to "logically" determine anything about a world.


----------



## Numion (Jul 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not only that, but the players I was talking about would think that they had done a good job looting, too!




Heh heh .. then it's absolutely no foul, no harm. Depending on your plans as a DM you can of course hint in-game they've missed a lot, if you want them to loot more, or just let it be. Like let them talk to a shopkeeper who just bought a lot of stuff from the refugees of their expedition.

FWIW the early adventures of the Shackled City campaign have a lot 'Greyhawked' treasure. It becomes even a bit annoying how oblivious the PCs can be - but due to the self-correcting nature* of 3E advancement it's not a big deal to miss either gold or XP. Hurts in the short term, but the whole campaign doesn't require 'taking 20' on the whole complex.

* Missing gold at lower levels is only a pittance compared to the usual hauls at upper levels, and missing xp is not a problem since lower level characters will net more from later encounters.


----------



## dagger (Jul 7, 2006)

I still like 3rd edition, but we are giving up on D&D and going to a system that is easier to DM prep (and has faster combats). We had been playing 3rd since September 2000.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, the elephant in the corner is exactly the same as D&D demographics.  Those peasants don't choose PC classes for the same reason that those casters don't choose continual light or continual flame.




The peasants don't choose PC classes for the same reason that day laborers don't become doctors and lawyers. The same economic imperatives don't seem to hold for those who are already wizards and clerics when they choose their selection of spells.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, the elephant in the corner is exactly the same as D&D demographics.  Those peasants don't choose PC classes for the same reason that those casters don't choose continual light or continual flame.




No it is not.  Peasants don't choose PC classes because the RAW says they don't.  

The RAW however gives exact prices for casting Continual Flame.  IIRC, the 1e DMG gave prices for casting Continual Light as well.  I know that they did give pricing for many spells.  Since the price is fixed by RAW, and the casters are allowed to choose those spells by RAW, then there is no RAW reason why they shouldn't cast for cash.



> the point is that the RAW must be altered to circumstance if you are going to use real world examples and socio-politics or economics to "logically" determine anything about a world.




What changes to RAW do I need to make to allow casters to cast for cash?*

The RAW establish the price.  The RAW establish the availability.  The RAW establish potential buyers and even gives personal wealth guidelines for those buyers.

How am I deviating the slightest from RAW by using NPC casters to provide light sources or other low level services for a settlement?


*By cash I am including kind as well.  Whether it be straight up money, or value in land, title or whatever.  Some form of reward for services rendered.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 7, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heh, I do enjoy a civilized convo.  LOL
> 
> I would point out though a couple of things.  The spell pricelist in the PHB carries no such caveat, which is more what I've been talking about anyway.  Permanent magic items isn't what I'm after.  It's the effects of permanent low level spells.  Also, the value of gold in DND is absolute.  It becomes difficult to adjust for any sort of market factor when the value of the money never changes.  Thirdly, the price for all equipment and spell components in the PHB are not subject to change either.
> 
> Even if magic items vary wildly in value, by RAW, none of the spells will.  A country where pearls are very rare will simply use smaller pearls to power an Identify spell.  After all, all I need is 100 gp in pearl.  It says nothing about how big that pearl, or even the quality of that pearl.




Uhm...excuse me if I'm not going to copy the whole text, but may I direct you to the DMG (3.0) page 156, heading _Supply and Demand_ in the *Economics* chapter? It's directly after the *Demographics* chapter that's quoted here all the time, so it shouldn't be hard to locate. To me, that describes, in a nutshell, how prices in a D&D campaign can and will change with the increase or decrease of gold and wares in any given area, and how non-cash concerns can influence availability and prices, and actually should. i dare say that can be extended to the gold value of permanent spells being cast, and magical components being available.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 7, 2006)

I think the sky is falling. I'm finding myself agreeing with both Raven Crowking AND Hussar. First, Raven made a point very succinctly...



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'd rather that the designers of 3e set a lower magic level as the default, but I agree that this is easily modified. What having a high-magic default does, that I do not care for, is set an expectation of high-magic. Again, though, this is easily modified.




I guess that was the point I was trying to make in the first place. I too wish the designers had set the "default magic level" lower. As Raven says, it's easily modified, but it has to BE modified (and player expectations correspondingly adjusted). I also wish D&D didn't make such a big deal out of the arcane/divine magic thing, but that's another issue entirely (sort of).



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, it's extemely difficult to ignore the elephant in the corner that is low level permanent magics. As was mentioned, these exist solely for metagame reasons. That's true. The only reason to have permanent light sources is to reduce the PITA factor of dungeon crawling. However, again, that reason doesn't have to be examined. We only have to worry about how it affects the setting, not why it's there in the first place.




That's an excellent point. Low level magics are a default result of the rules as written. But to me, and to RC, I think, the larger elephant in the corner is the reason to have a permanent light source - to reduce the PITA factor of dungeon crawling. When the spell was introduced, nobody thought about what its long-term implications on societies would be. They just wanted a way for dungeon crawling PCs to not have to renew their light spells every day. The implications of it came along much later.

So we have this enormous elephant that exists for metagame reasons. Since it's a metagame problem, the simplest solution is to metagame it dead by saying "Continual Flame" isn't permanent, just REALLY long-lasting. Long enough that it doesn't affect the PCs (who can cast it the day before any dungeon crawl they take and still have their lights work and a full complement of "spell slots"), but not permanent, meaning no continual flame streetlights. No mountains of continual flame rocks sitting around. Thus is the problem solved. Unfortunately some people think this is heavy-handed.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Perhaps that is what's tripping us up here. I'm not terribly concerned with the why. Why something is in the game world, or why that game world looks like it does doesn't really concern me. It's a given. However, my concern is given a particular starting point (RAW demographics ((LOL, typoed this as demongraphics))) how is that setting affected by the presence of cheap permanent spells?




But to some of us, WHY is important. If something exists for metagame reasons, it should have ingame logic too - "verisimilitude" as they say.

I agree with you that cheap, permanent spells would change a setting. They should, _unless there's a good reason why they don't._ So you can either a) change the setting, or b) provide the reason they don't change it.

What RC is getting at is, to a large extent, a reason for that based on human nature. That's not in the RAW...exactly. However, there is one line in the DMG that addresses it. It's in the sidebar about "How Real is your Fantasy?" and it says something like "people in D&D react as you would expect people to react - unless the DM says differently." So one of the default assumptions of the RAW is human beings who react like human beings do in the real world.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I think Gizmo33 makes a good point. The people of Rome certainly didn't think magic didn't work. They believed that it did and acted accordingly. Those leaders spending the equivalent of millions of dollars on a fingerbone of some dead important guy didn't do so because they thought it was a hoax. They acted as if magic worked. There are so many real world examples of societies that believe in magic and spend vast resources fueling that belief. Why should the provable existence of magic change that?
> 
> The question is raised of controlling those who cast spells. Churches work extremely well for this. Mage guilds are certainly a solid part of the genre. Both work pretty well in controlling magic. Dragonlance featured wizard police that killed unlicensed mages for example.
> 
> I do agree that there would be SOME sort of control placed over spell casters. They would not likely be allowed to operate in a power vacuum, at least, not for very long. Would this be state controlled? Possibly. But, then again, guilds work as a protection both for and against the state. As do churches. It is possible to have the numbers of spell casters as dictated by the RAW without having totalitarian states cutting out the tongues of everyone with magic abilities.




I agree on this. But...

The problem is that guilds need to be established in the first place. Religions need to be established. And before you can get social structures, human nature comes into play. Pretend that we don't have a D&D world that's thousands of years old, created with all its systems in place. Pretend it's a real, functional world that develops organically.

If nothing has changed, per the RAW, we have druids (and rangers) and sorcerers first. Druids get their power from nature itself, so no formalized religion is necessary. Similarly, sorcerer's magic is inherent, so they don't have to develop practices for accessing magic, they just CAN. Clerics, more or less, arrive when gods do. When the gods arrive is a campaign-specific question the RAW don't address. If they're eternal, they're right there with the druids and sorcerers. And every D&D campaign's a theocracy run by a deity. Assuming they have any interest in doing that. However, if you have less activist deities, then clerics are no more trustworthy than sorcerers. If the gods aren't eternal (or their power is determined by the number of worshipers they have, or whatever), things are a bit different. For now, let's assume less than active deities, or that clerics come later.

How does an early society treat these people? The obvious answer is as medicine men, shamans, or gods - similarly to what happened with wisemen in the real world. Now that's a reasonable assumption for a high-level spellcaster, but what about when he's low-level? Then, he's not terribly powerful compared to the fighter types. But as he gets more powerful, he either: a) becomes a threat or b) is smart enough to mind his P's and Q's and make himself somewhat useful to those with power.

Eventually, some spellcaster is going to get greedy and abuse his power. It's human nature. He's got power over others. So what happens then?

The society would either be dominated by spellcasters, or place strict controls on them. Since the society knows from experience it can't control spellcasters once they get powerful, most authorities would probably opt to control them when they were still controllable. That is, in D&D terms, "when they're low-level."

The point is...what happens when beings with special powers show up? At first, it's great. They can do nice things for you and everything is hunky-dory. But the first time they prove untrustworthy, people would probably have a hard time letting anyone practice magic. The potential for abuse is just too great. And the easiest way to handle that abuse is to prevent it from ever becoming a problem.

Which means offing not just high-level casters, but low-level ones too. So most spellcasters would be hiding in secret enclaves unless they ran the society. Or, they'd be keeping a low profile and only getting involved very lightly.

Like the X-Men, "good" aligned casters would probably work to prevent their "evil" or "selfish" counterparts from abusing those less powerful than them. And, for the most part, staying out of society so as not to be perceived as a threat themselves. They might provide a few marvels to keep the goodwill of the people, but they're probably not going to go overboard with this.

Of course, the preceding is really just my opinion. YMMV.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 8, 2006)

Okay there's one thing that I didn't say that needs to be said:

Hussar,

I was joking! 

Thank you.

Scarred Lands rules!! Scarred Lands FOREVER!!!

Thank you.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 8, 2006)

> So we have this enormous elephant that exists for metagame reasons. Since it's a metagame problem, the simplest solution is to metagame it dead by saying "Continual Flame" isn't permanent, just REALLY long-lasting. Long enough that it doesn't affect the PCs (who can cast it the day before any dungeon crawl they take and still have their lights work and a full complement of "spell slots"), but not permanent, meaning no continual flame streetlights. No mountains of continual flame rocks sitting around. Thus is the problem solved. Unfortunately some people think this is heavy-handed.




Just a couple of points.  

My point was, how do we view the implications of RAW upon a setting.  Sure, you can change the RAW.  That's always true.  But, that still ignores the question.  Heavy handed or not, it doesn't address the question at hand.



> If nothing has changed, per the RAW, we have druids (and rangers) and sorcerers first. Druids get their power from nature itself, so no formalized religion is necessary. Similarly, sorcerer's magic is inherent, so they don't have to develop practices for accessing magic, they just CAN. Clerics, more or less, arrive when gods do. When the gods arrive is a campaign-specific question the RAW don't address. If they're eternal, they're right there with the druids and sorcerers. And every D&D campaign's a theocracy run by a deity. Assuming they have any interest in doing that. However, if you have less activist deities, then clerics are no more trustworthy than sorcerers. If the gods aren't eternal (or their power is determined by the number of worshipers they have, or whatever), things are a bit different. For now, let's assume less than active deities, or that clerics come later.




According to 3e RAW, clerics don't need gods.  There is no reason that clerics cannot come about at the same time as druids and sorcs.  The only one that "needs" training is wizards.

Heh, out of order, but,



> I guess that was the point I was trying to make in the first place. I too wish the designers had set the "default magic level" lower. As Raven says, it's easily modified, but it has to BE modified (and player expectations correspondingly adjusted). I also wish D&D didn't make such a big deal out of the arcane/divine magic thing, but that's another issue entirely (sort of).




This is a base point that we disagree on.  The demographics of the magic in DnD is hardly high magic.  As was mentioned in another thread, Waterdeep, Pop 135 000 (a MASSIVE city), by RAW could have 1 18th level wizard.  If you interpret RAW differently, it could at max have 5.  This is the largest city in the whole world and it has 5 guys capable of 9th level magic.

The vast majority of cities don't come anywhere near this.  For 99% of the population, low level clerics and wizards are all they could ever see.  And low level spell casters just don't have enough magic oomph to make much difference.

But, even with very low numbers, over a long enough time span, those permanent continual lights add up.

Take a look back at the demographics section in the 3.5 DMG.  You'll find that the magic level is far lower than you might expect.  Someone mentioned around here about how his 2e campaign was so low magic that all a single 7th level character had was a +3 weapon and some potions.  By 3.x rules, he couldn't even have that.  

It isn't until the very high levels 14+ that you see the Christmas tree effect.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 8, 2006)

So...I'm in the clear?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 8, 2006)

Of course.  SL is the ONE TRUE SETTING TO RULE THEM ALLLLLLLLL!!!!!  ahem... erm...

Still, I one of the things I liked about SL is how they tied the caster classes to the history of the setting.  Monks exist because the Chardunni dwarves took away all the weapons.  Sorcerers and Druids are tied to the titans.  Wizards to the slarcians.  Clerics to the gods.  Gives each of them a reason to exist.

And, in various parts of the history, each of them had come to dominate before getting slapped down by another group.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 8, 2006)

Uhm actually that's psionics to the Slacerians. Wizards just decided to steal that from sorcerers.  

But yeah each group had their moments. Just now it's Rangers and Paladins that are shining brightly.


----------



## replicant2 (Jul 8, 2006)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Modules??? I played AD&D for 5 years and never touched a single module. They are just lazy DMing.




Ahem...wait until you have a wife and kids, a house to maintain, etc., etc.

And even before those days, we had lots of fun with classics like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, In the Dungeons of the Slavelords, The Keep on the Borderlands, Pharoah, etc. It's a shame you missed out.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 8, 2006)

Rep,

There are some good modules out today too. Some even manage to be come full fledge campaigns. Shackled City and Age of Worms for starters...


----------



## Hussar (Jul 8, 2006)

> Uhm actually that's psionics to the Slacerians. Wizards just decided to steal that from sorcerers.




Hang on, the Slarcians according to the Ghelspad CS book (in the Epoch of Mesos, p 7 and The Slarcian Empire p 12) kidnap Drendari and then begin teaching wizard magic to anyone who wanted it.  The only reason I know this is I happened to be rereading the book last night.  



> There are some good modules out today too. Some even manage to be come full fledge campaigns. Shackled City and Age of Worms for starters...




Let's not forget the World's Largest Dungeon as well.    (Hey if Sage can pimp his favourite project...  )


----------



## replicant2 (Jul 8, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Rep,
> 
> There are some good modules out today too. Some even manage to be come full fledge campaigns. Shackled City and Age of Worms for starters...




Agreed Nightfall. 

But my point is that modules are NOT lazy DMing (an old chestnut, and one I'm quite frankly tired of hearing)--they're a great source of gaming for many who don't have the time to create their own adventures.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 8, 2006)

Hussar, yes the Slacerians taught magic, but it was SHADOW magic, not wizardry. I don't recall the Slacerians ever making "magic" their primary goal. 

And yes you can pimp WLD. But I'll just pimp Rappan Athuk Reloaded!  Top that!  

Rep,

Understood. I was merely pointing out the good ones.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 8, 2006)

Nightfall, I happen to have the book open in front of me.  In the opening sections of the Ghelspad hardcover, they specifically say that wizardry is taught by the slarcians and wizards are hunted by sorcerers and druids as slarcian collaborators.  Page 7.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 8, 2006)

Well either a) I'm wrong or b) they are wrong. Which do you think it is Hussar?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just a couple of points.
> 
> My point was, how do we view the implications of RAW upon a setting.  Sure, you can change the RAW.  That's always true.  But, that still ignores the question.  Heavy handed or not, it doesn't address the question at hand.[/QUOTE}
> 
> ...


----------



## glass (Jul 10, 2006)

replicant2 said:
			
		

> But my point is that modules are NOT lazy DMing (an old chestnut, and one I'm quite frankly tired of hearing)--they're a great source of gaming for many who don't have the time to create their own adventures.



And even if you do have the time, modules can be a good way to mix thing up a bit, keep the players guessing.


glass.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jul 10, 2006)

I love reading these sorts of threads.  But I think that I will just not worry about how certain magic affects the world and just play and or run the game.


----------



## Deadguy (Jul 10, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> And even if you do have the time, modules can be a good way to mix thing up a bit, keep the players guessing.



Yes. With the best will in the world, as DMs we can get stuck into ruts with ideas for adventures, adventure locales and motivations. Seeing other people's adventures can help you see where those ruts have led you, and open up a vista of other places it never even occurred to you to visit!


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2006)

> I thought your point was that the current "magitech" extrapolation of the RAW was more logical than other past and possible extrapolations. If this isn't your point, then obviously I don't need to argue about it.




Actually, the logical part was yours.    I said mature.  LOL.  

OTOH, this is actually somewhat removed from what I was saying.  My original point was the examination of a setting where RAW forms the basis of the settings physics rather than creating a setting and then applying the rules to it is a more... ahem, sorry, I said mature .. approach.

Yeah, mature is the wrong word.  I just can't think of another one.  Verisimilitudinous?  Can I say that?

In the past, settings were created and then the RAW overlaid on top.  And it made for some really wonky things.  Current design approaches seem to be coming from the other direction.  We have the basic physics of the setting, now, what would a setting look like where all those things are true?  

In other words, self reflection.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with it.  It is far less wrenching to my personal sensiblities to say that low level spells with permanent effects will be widespread than to try to manipulate the setting into some sort of anachronistic Orwellian setting where the massive State controls every facet of society.

Really, it's the differnce in approach between the Known World and Greyhawk.  Greyhawk was created with a particular end in mind - a pseudo European setting with lowish magic.  Known World said bugger that and went all out.  

To me, the problems with Greyhawk, and then Forgotten Realms was this huge dichotomy between the source material.  In one book magic should be rare and beyond the ken of mortal man.  Yet in the next one, every NPC has more magic than the average dragon.  

If you have a low magic setting, fine.  I have no problems with that.  But, if you want to have a low magic setting while retaining all of the RAW, then I see it spiraling out of control.  



> Using the idea that what is in the RAW goes without trying to determine how the RAW fits into normal socio-economic and political behavior means that a world in which spellcasters never cast spells unless paid and spend the rest of their time acting like chickens is as "logical" as the next one.  Somehow, I don't buy that.




Well, not really, since I don't believe anywhere in the RAW it states that spellcasters should act like chickens.  Nor does it state anything about spell casters not casting unless they get paid.  What it does state is that if someone wants to pay a spell caster to cast a spell, it costs Caster LevelXSpell LevelX20.  Extrapolating beyond that is again, going beyond the RAW.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Actually, the logical part was yours.    I said mature.  LOL.




I thought you said both.  Perhaps it was someone else.



> OTOH, this is actually somewhat removed from what I was saying.  My original point was the examination of a setting where RAW forms the basis of the settings physics rather than creating a setting and then applying the rules to it is a more... ahem, sorry, I said mature .. approach.




Why?  Because this is, right here, where you and I differ.  First off, I don't believe that it is anything other than a stylistic difference to either extrapolate from rules to make a setting or to make a setting and then fit the rules to it.  Neither is more "verisimilitudinous" though either, if done badly, can break suspension of disbelief.

This doesn't even violate RAW, btw, because there is nothing in the RAW that says all things in the book must be available.  In fact, the RAW says exactly the opposite.

Second off, I don't think that even "self reflection" requires that a D&D world rationally derived from the RAW must look "magitech-y".



> If you have a low magic setting, fine.  I have no problems with that.  But, if you want to have a low magic setting while retaining all of the RAW, then I see it spiraling out of control.




I can see that.  I tend to think that a more focused world is going to be easier to keep from spiralling out of control, regardless of magic level.



> Well, not really, since I don't believe anywhere in the RAW it states that spellcasters should act like chickens.  Nor does it state anything about spell casters not casting unless they get paid.  What it does state is that if someone wants to pay a spell caster to cast a spell, it costs Caster LevelXSpell LevelX20.  Extrapolating beyond that is again, going beyond the RAW.




This is the other area where we differ.  The RAW says that X number of spellcasters of various types and levels live in area Y.  It doesn't say how easy or hard they are to find.  It doesn't say what spells they know.  It doesn't say what their lives are like; whether they live in fearful hiding or if you can find one by asking at the local pub.  The RAW does say that NPCs act the way the DM says they act.  Which means that, if we accept your arguement that nothing in the RAW needs explaining, they act the way the DM says they act and it needs no explaination.

It seems painfully obvious to me that answering "We have the basic physics of the setting, now, what would a setting look like where all those things are true?" _*requires*_ one to go beyond the RAW.  

It seems to me that you are looking at a few options of how that could be done as though those were the only options.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  You also seem to be looking at worlds designed for the current edition as examples of this process, without acknowledging that those worlds go "beyond the RAW" as much as (or more than) the divergence required to create a low magic setting.

RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 10, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, not really, since I don't believe anywhere in the RAW it states that spellcasters should act like chickens.  Nor does it state anything about spell casters not casting unless they get paid.  What it does state is that if someone wants to pay a spell caster to cast a spell, it costs Caster LevelXSpell LevelX20.  Extrapolating beyond that is again, going beyond the RAW.




Nope, it is what others call "Dungeon Mastering", and it cannot go beyond the RAW, because doing so is encouraged in quite a lot of places in the DMG already, in order to make a campaign world your own, or make it yourself, and as such is part of the RAW as anything else. I'm not sure if you're just silly-teasing with this line of argumentation, but nowhere in the core books can I find the attitude that as long as it *isn't* expressively written in the rules, it isn't valid as part of the game. Especially the DMG states the opposite repeatedly.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 11, 2006)

I think we do agree on one thing.  It is perfectly possible to create a setting by taking the setting first and overlaying the rules.  Of course that is true.  Twenty-five years of game design shows that.

However, it is also perfectly true that you can go the other direction.  Start with the rules of the setting being dictated as much as possible by the RAW and going from there.

Yes, it doesn't state how easy the CLERICS are to find (now I don't have to worry about what spells they know, they know them all), but, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the king probably could find one.  

And, that's all it takes.  One.  One single 3rd level cleric could light a city in his lifetime.  And that city now has a huge advantage over cities that don't have light.

For me, it comes down to what is easier to believe.  That no king, anywhere in a setting would avail himself on this resource or that one would and others would follow.  True, this is a style difference, but, this comes out of looking at the RAW and how it works in a setting rather than letting the setting dictate RAW.

Take the buying and selling of magic items.  What are the chances that no one, not one single person, will ever sell a magic item, but, anyone will buy one?  Or, conversely, that no magic item ever created can be bought or sold?  

Any resource that a society is capable to exploit will be exploited.  RC has gone on at length about human nature.  This too is part of that.  If something can be used, it will be.  How can you justify a setting where magic is not exploited without relying on that magic itself to create a setting where it can be supressed?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 11, 2006)

Note that the only thing I disagree from your posts here right now is your notion as to what can and cannot be inferred from the RAW as you demonstrated it in your last few posts.  

As for your reasoning about a magic-using nation, I perfectly agree. One of the first TSR products to hold my fancy was _The Principalities of Glantri_, which had magically illuminated streets, water-elemental driven gondolas and moving services that offerd everything from flying carpets to teleportation.  Of course, it also was a magocracy.

On the other hand, it also had regions were magic was either a tightly controlled financial commodity (Darokin) or a mysterious and rare force (Karameikos). All variants are easily explained by human nature. In one area, magic is the ruling force, and wizards display their power by deploying it to make their lands more to their liking, and safer. In another, only one organization holds the key to that power, and controls all influx of it from outside, setting the prices and the rarity of it. In the next, magic is hard to come by, and those who try to pursue it have a hard time finding a teacher and overcoming the superstitious reactions of their fellow people. And in those worlds that have no easy transportation, where you have to walk for weeks before you might find somebody to teach you magic, fewer will take that ordeal on their shoulders, and not "take a level of wizard on a whim".

And no matter that a low-level wizard can throw a few magic missiles, as long as he can't fly, teleport, turn invisible or throw mass destruction around, a superstitious mob will get him if they think they have to.  

About clerics...the fact that not all clerics might simply go and illuminate a city for a secular ruler has been brought up already, even for a tract of land of a generous donation. They might need the spell power for something more important, like healing or blessing, they might not agree with the king that squandering their god's gifts on small alleys is a worthy deed, and might get reprimanded by their deity for doing so (remember, in most D&D worlds, gods make their displeasure pretty imminent, in contrast to the real world), or they simply do not care (neutral churches who don't give a rat's behind about illuminated streets).

And yep, it only takes one 3rd level cleric whose life quest it is to illuminate the cities...and 5 years later, you get another crazy cleric who runs around dispelling or cancelling them lights with his god's blessings. As a secular ruler, I'd not be sure if I wanted lights in my city that can be snuffed out on a god's whim as easily as that.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 11, 2006)

> About clerics...the fact that not all clerics might simply go and illuminate a city for a secular ruler has been brought up already, even for a tract of land of a generous donation. They might need the spell power for something more important, like healing or blessing, they might not agree with the king that squandering their god's gifts on small alleys is a worthy deed, and might get reprimanded by their deity for doing so (remember, in most D&D worlds, gods make their displeasure pretty imminent, in contrast to the real world), or they simply do not care (neutral churches who don't give a rat's behind about illuminated streets).




But, the trick is, it doesn't matter if they all will.  I don't need all.  I just need one.  It would be nice to have more than one.  Not required, but nice.  

The thing that gets missed here is not only do I only need one cleric, but I only need one cleric in the entire history of my nation.  Most campaign settings have at least a couple of centuries of history.  Continual light lasts forever.  Sure, some wingnut might start dispelling them, someone else might steal them.  Such is the life of any commodity.  OTOH, it costs me very little other than an initial outlay of cash.  Any losses due to vandalism can be written off and replaced pretty easily.  

I am not familiar with the Known Worlds all that well.  Most of what I know comes from the Voyage of the Princess Ark articles in Dragon.  In my mind, a state which burns all its witches is going to be an extremely short lived one.  Not only does it have to worry about a neighbouring state which might have a more relaxed view on wizards, but, the large number of magic wielding monsters out there are going to have a HUGE advantage over the low magic state.  While higher level characters can deal with DR simply through power attack, low level commoners have not that luxury.

I remember wiping out a fairly large town with my summoned fire elemental in 2e simply because the DM played to the idea that magic should be extremely rare.  My 9th level mage decided that the town wasn't being properly subservient and razed it.  When an elemental needs +2 weapons to be hit, it's a pretty large tactical weakness not to stock up on some +2 weapons.  

And that's why I don't believe that states, regardless of size, are going to cut off their own noses by killing all the wizards.  In a RAW setting where you can find higher level NPC's in a large town, what I did would be impossible.  In a setting where the state restricts those wizards but isn't 100% effective, the first wizzie to gain double digit levels is pretty much unstoppable.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 11, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, the trick is, it doesn't matter if they all will.  I don't need all.  I just need one.  It would be nice to have more than one.  Not required, but nice.
> 
> The thing that gets missed here is not only do I only need one cleric, but I only need one cleric in the entire history of my nation.  Most campaign settings have at least a couple of centuries of history.  Continual light lasts forever.  Sure, some wingnut might start dispelling them, someone else might steal them.  Such is the life of any commodity.  OTOH, it costs me very little other than an initial outlay of cash.  Any losses due to vandalism can be written off and replaced pretty easily.




And yep, it only takes one 3rd level cleric whose life quest it is to illuminate the cities...and 5 years later, you get another crazy cleric who runs around dispelling or cancelling them lights with his god's blessings. And this is entirely probable, even if you play with monotheistic backgrounds, as there will always be devil-worshippers who make it their biggest aim to destroy this sign of goodwill of the "one god". If you play with polytheistic backgrounds, all it needs is a rival god getting his dander up about this divinely illuminated city and sending out his priests to "rectify" the situation. And as we're dealing with religious conflicts, it might easily turn into more than petty vandalism...either you have diabolists running around in the city, or a bigger argument between two churches looms ahead. Both great campaign hooks, of course.  

Edit: An easier way to illuminate the whole city, by the way, is to simply pass a law that all registered citizens of the city have to have a light burning outside their house after sundown, at least a candle for normal citizens and bigger oil lamps for taverns and bars. That way, you even support the local wax candle and oil industry.  



> I am not familiar with the Known Worlds all that well.  Most of what I know comes from the Voyage of the Princess Ark articles in Dragon.  In my mind, a state which burns all its witches is going to be an extremely short lived one.  Not only does it have to worry about a neighbouring state which might have a more relaxed view on wizards, but, the large number of magic wielding monsters out there are going to have a HUGE advantage over the low magic state.  While higher level characters can deal with DR simply through power attack, low level commoners have not that luxury.
> 
> I remember wiping out a fairly large town with my summoned fire elemental in 2e simply because the DM played to the idea that magic should be extremely rare.  My 9th level mage decided that the town wasn't being properly subservient and razed it.  When an elemental needs +2 weapons to be hit, it's a pretty large tactical weakness not to stock up on some +2 weapons.
> 
> And that's why I don't believe that states, regardless of size, are going to cut off their own noses by killing all the wizards.  In a RAW setting where you can find higher level NPC's in a large town, what I did would be impossible.  In a setting where the state restricts those wizards but isn't 100% effective, the first wizzie to gain double digit levels is pretty much unstoppable.




And why should something like your wizard did be "impossible" in a campaign world? As far as I know, a big heap of D&D adventures lived on the "mad, powerful wizard terrorizes the countryside, poor helpless peasants can't defend themselves, enter the heroes" kind of story? Happens all the time...and at some point, the wizard hits enough opposition in comparable levels that he's obliterated. Or the church takes an active interest after he razed the third or fourth town with a shrine or temple in it, and sends one of their paladins with retinue. Or he simply gets eaten by one of his own, uncontrollable creations that then roams the countryside.

Oh, and the large number of magical or magic-using monsters is not that large if you consider that many of those monsters have a rarity rating that makes it hard to find two of them within the same 500 miles.  And even if...that's what adventurers are living off, too, after all.

You see, the point is that *everything* is possible, and not everything is logical..and if you look around, you'll find that in more than 50% of what's going on, logic doesn't play much of a role in people's decisions, even those of rulers. Maybe one evil high-level wizard is enough to convince a nation to allow more wizards in order to have countermeasures...it might also drive them away from simply discouraging wizards and magic, and to killing every wizard on sight, with extreme prejudice and the sanction and divine help of the churches. Or it makes them simply put up higher bounties in case one wizard decides to test the waters of the "Dark Side", so he is stopped earlier by greedy adventurers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 11, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes, it doesn't state how easy the CLERICS are to find (now I don't have to worry about what spells they know, they know them all), but, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the king probably could find one.




Now you're adding to the RAW.  The RAW doesn't state that the King can find one.    

If we begin to talk about what we find easier to believe, then we also begin to talk about what makes sense outside of the context of the RAW.  And then we get into all those political discussions that you dismissed earlier because the RAW didn't say anything about the dynamics of power as relates to spellcasters.

There is nothing wrong with your conclusions, especially if one removes the conclusion that the "magitech" interpretation of what a D&D world would/should be like is somehow objectively superior to a non-magitech interpretation.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 11, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> About clerics...the fact that not all clerics might simply go and illuminate a city for a secular ruler has been brought up already, even for a tract of land of a generous donation. They might need the spell power for something more important, like healing or blessing, they might not agree with the king that squandering their god's gifts on small alleys is a worthy deed, and might get reprimanded by their deity for doing so (remember, in most D&D worlds, gods make their displeasure pretty imminent, in contrast to the real world), or they simply do not care (neutral churches who don't give a rat's behind about illuminated streets).




Also, remember that while a cleric per RAW can cast those spells without the need of a deity or a deity's blessing, an angry god per RAW can make both cleric and king rue the day they thought it was a good idea.....

Does your world have a powerful god of thieves?  A god of darkness or the night?  Didn't the gods already divvy up day & night between them?  Did not the gods of night allow the moon to shine in its phases already?  Have they not conceded stars to illuminate?  Do they not allow torches, lights that flicker, lights that do not last, and even the occasional continual light?  Who, then, has the hubris to steal night from the dark gods?!?

*Mindset is not dictated by RAW.*

All it takes is one magically illuminated ruin...JUST ONE...for the world to get the idea.    

RC


----------



## Hussar (Jul 11, 2006)

> There is nothing wrong with your conclusions, especially if one removes the conclusion that the "magitech" interpretation of what a D&D world would/should be like is somehow objectively superior to a non-magitech interpretation.




Superior is a very loaded word that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.  Or an eleven foot one either.  

The original point of this whole mess was the idea that DnD becoming self reflective was a bad thing.  If you swim WAY up thread, you'll see that.  My point was always that self-reflection is a signal of a genre beginning to mature as a genre.  

You can see it in the development of the game.  Going back to Keep on the Borderlands.  There's nothing in there about what the Cave dwellers eat, there's no attempt at any sort of reason for them being there.  It was simply "There's a keep, there's a bunch of monsters, go kill them."  And it was glorious.  

Then, a little later on, people started detailing things a little more.  Adventures became tied to a general theme.  Slave Lords comes to mind here.  The encounters in the modules are generally tied to the theme of the module.  There are reasons given for many of the monster's being where they are.  There are guidelines given for what the monsters do in their day to day existence.  Sure, it's emaciated to the point of undeath, but, it's still there.  And, again, it was glorious.

Skipping over 2e since many of the modules in 2e were not very good, we come to 3e.  Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.  There is little or no sense that the monsters are simply a random conglomeration of critters.  There are leaders in each group and they all talk to eachother.  There is an attempt to make the entire complex act in a manner that is consistent.

Compare THAT to Shackled City or Age of Worms.  

Now, to me, this is the sign of the genre of DnD maturing.  Like fine wine, it gets better with age.  Not that new wine is BAD.  It's not.  There are lots of very fine new wines.  It's just that it gets better.  And part of that is actually taking the time to examine how the RAW interacts with the setting.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 11, 2006)

And it's equal fun to either take the RAW (and its mindset) and create a campaign world from that, or take a campaign background and tailor the RAW to it.

By the way...I agree to your last post, Hussar. D&D as a game, including most of it's players and authors, has matured in its mindset of what to achieve with the RAW. And that's definitely a good thing. It stimulates the creation of new adventures and campaign settings, and it encourages to look at the old stuff with new eyes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 11, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Superior is a very loaded word that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.  Or an eleven foot one either.




So is "mature".    

Seriously, though, being self-reflexive is not, in and of itself, either a good thing or a bad thing.  I certainly don't accept that it is "a signal of a genre beginning to mature as a genre"....It can just as easily be a signal of a genre collapsing under its own weight (literally jumping the shark) or a signal of nothing at all.  Compare _The Blues Brothers_ (  ) with the very self-reflective _Blues Brothers 2_ (  ).

OTOH, I think you should re-read _Keep on the Borderlands_.  It was certainly assumed that the DM could (and would) do a lot of the background work as to why the characters were there, where the Keep was, and what the background story was.  IMHO, the evil power saturating the very stones in the temple cave probably drew the creatures to the area.  

The module provides a strong skeleton that the DM must add flesh to.  To my mind, this is not a fault, and is certainly no different than some 3.X modules, such as WLD (which, IMHO, requires a _*lot*_ more work/room to bring up to par than B2 does...several magnitudes more, I'd say).

Far from being no mention of what they ate, Gygax included storerooms of food as "treasure" in the module, and the careful party could surprise some of the humanoids going about their daily business.  One of the orc caves includes an ongoing feast!  (Or, at least, does if the PCs are quite and clever!)  They also lived in a forest, allowing for plentiful game, and carried on raids against the Keep or caravans going to the Keep (as evidenced by their treasure, and supplying the motive to wipe them out).

The module included factions and alliances, allowing the PCs to deal with some of the creatures through role playing rather than combat.  It had encounters that took wits to deal with as well as brawn.  It acknowledged that the PCs were not the first adventurers in the area (prisoners & bugbear caves).  And, on top of that, it offered a heck of a lot of adventure.

The biggest downside?  The DM had to name the NPCs.  If that forms a major stumbling block, maybe it's time to reconsider this whole DMing thing.....   

To my mind, B2 is still the benchmark module.  From debating theology with evil acolytes to hunting an owlbear, there's a lot of stuff to do.  The DM advice is good.  The map is cool.  There's plenty of areas for the DM to expand, and there's a lot of room for customization.  

Few adventures rival B2 in material per page, fewer still in content.  IMHO, and YMMV, of course.



> Skipping over 2e since many of the modules in 2e were not very good




Here, at least, we agree!    

RC


----------



## Numion (Jul 11, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Also, remember that while a cleric per RAW can cast those spells without the need of a deity or a deity's blessing, an angry god per RAW can make both cleric and king rue the day they thought it was a good idea.....
> 
> Does your world have a powerful god of thieves?  A god of darkness or the night?  Didn't the gods already divvy up day & night between them?  Did not the gods of night allow the moon to shine in its phases already?  Have they not conceded stars to illuminate?  Do they not allow torches, lights that flicker, lights that do not last, and even the occasional continual light?  Who, then, has the hubris to steal night from the dark gods?!?




So, you're arguing that some god would get super-angry at friggin' _streetlights?_  

But it would be okay to have normal streetlights, like torches and lanters? Well, my dad sometimes got angry if the lights were on needlessly during the days too, like everburning torches would be ..


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2006)

Common lantern = 1sp, 15’/30’, 6 hours per pint of oil (2 pints per night)

Hooded lantern = 7gp, 30’/60’, 6 hours per pint of oil (2 pints per night)

Pint of oil = 1sp

Sunrod = 2gp, 30’/60’, 1 hour (12 per night)

Torch = 1cp, 20’/40’, 1 hour (12 per night)

Continual flame = 50.01gp, 20’/40’, permanent (1 ever)

365 days x 12 hours per night* = 4,380 hours

So. . .

Common lantern = 73gp per year (plus 1sp once)

Hooded lantern = 73gp per year (plus 7gp once)

Sunrod = 4,380gp per year

Torch = 43.8gp per year

Continual flame = 0gp per year (plus 50gp once)

And the above costs do not include the payment of a streetlight keeper.

The continual flame costs more upfront, but the others cost more over a relatively short period of time.

* Average year round – less night in summer, more night in winter.

Quasqueton


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 11, 2006)

Let's see. What say we compare two spells to determine how likely magical streetlights are...



> From the SRD:
> 
> _Continual Flame_
> Evocation [Light]
> ...




So, with one Dispel Magic, I can probably end every Continual Flame in a 20 ft. radius. That's just as likely as someone casting the Continual Flames in the first place.

And the Dispel Magic is free, so all you need is one mischievous wizard, sorcerer, cleric, (or bard!), and he can undo 1000s of gp of magical light in...ohh...about 2 weeks.

Uh-huh. That'd NEVER happen.

Magical vandalism is just as likely a behavior as magical altruism or professional spellcasting...and a whole lot less expensive.

A bored bard might do it for yucks...Heck, it could result from an area effect dispel thrown in a barfight.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jul 11, 2006)

I doudt the local thieves guild would be too happy about all these permanent lights everywhere either. Between stealing them when no one is looking and having guild wizards dispel a few each week the magical street lights would wind up costing far more in the long run and not being much more effective. 

   Citizens forced to buy lantern oil or pay 50gp (that no commoner should ever have according to the RAW) if they dont want to live in the dark would encourage tons of everyday citizens to steal one for use at night as well. Continual flame streetlights would be great... if you could keep everyone and thier brother from stealing them.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2006)

Wow there's a lot of people (in the D&D game world) who *really* hate light. Would these people also smash lanterns, or is it just magical light they hate? 

"Hey, Bob, there's another streetlight. Call the mage and have him snuff it out. Oh, wait, it's a normal oil-burning lamp. Nevermind. Let's just walk through the alley."

An arrow costs very little, and any 1st-level rogue could shoot and kill the streetlamp lighters easily from the shadows. Heck, a mage could throw a _fireball_ in the oil storage house and really burn down a chunk of the city. (But maybe they wouldn't do that because the burning structures would cast light -- and they hate light.)

Very soon, these light-haters could keep the whole city in shadowy darkness.

Quasqueton


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 11, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> So, you're arguing that some god would get super-angry at friggin' _streetlights?_




Have you ever read much mythology?  Old-timey gods get angry whenever their perceived domains are challenged by mortals.  When Prometheus gave humans fire (which the gods didn't want them to have), what happened to him?  It doesn't require a lot of _people_ to hate light; it requires _one god_ -- just one -- or any form of creature that subsists off magical energy.  Heck, that jewel shining in the night might just attract the attention of ethereal filchers and dragons (who apparently love to hoard magic items).

Of course, D&D worlds _never_ contains gods of darkness or magiovoures.


----------



## Numion (Jul 11, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Have you ever read much mythology?  Old-timey gods get angry whenever their perceived domains are challenged by mortals.




If that was the case in a D&D world, adventuring would hardly be possible. If some gods flip out at the upgrade of torch'n'lantern streetlights to magical streetlights (a luddite god or whatever), wouldn't the gods of orcs and kobolds stomp down on anyone killing them? Like adventurers?

I mean .. killing a kobold would be a lot bigger offense to kobold god, than the upgrade of a lantern to an everburning torch to a darkness god. Because, lantern and everburning torch give about the same amount of light.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 11, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> If that was the case in a D&D world, adventuring would hardly be possible. If some gods flip out at the upgrade of torch'n'lantern streetlights to magical streetlights (a luddite god or whatever), wouldn't the gods of orcs and kobolds stomp down on anyone killing them? Like adventurers?
> 
> I mean .. killing a kobold would be a lot bigger offense to kobold god, than the upgrade of a lantern to an everburning torch to a darkness god. Because, lantern and everburning torch give about the same amount of light.




The usual answer to the first point is gobbledegook about the Orc gods wanting their followers to be tough.  Or that the kobold god just isn't powerful enough to wreak vengeance because the human/elf/dwarf gods protect the adventurers.  IMC, the orcs believe that they go to prepare for war against the Celestials in the afterlife...life is just to toughen them up for this future conflict.

The answer to the second point is htat a lantern is "mortal"; it has a lifespan, it is lit, it gives light, and it "dies" when the oil runs out.  The everburning torch is "immortal".  The god of darkness/night/whatever may overlook the occasional everburning torch, but when you make an industry of it you spit in her face.

(And, yes, BTW, if you attempted the genocide of a species, you very well should face that species' protector(s)!)


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 11, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> If that was the case in a D&D world, adventuring would hardly be possible. If some gods flip out at the upgrade of torch'n'lantern streetlights to magical streetlights (a luddite god or whatever), wouldn't the gods of orcs and kobolds stomp down on anyone killing them? Like adventurers?
> 
> I mean .. killing a kobold would be a lot bigger offense to kobold god, than the upgrade of a lantern to an everburning torch to a darkness god. Because, lantern and everburning torch give about the same amount of light.




Isn't that why adventurers continually have to beat back kobolds, orcs and goblins led by big chieftains, dark priests and evil wizards trying to overrun civilized countries?   

At least the thread starts really covering the "sacred cows" of D&D adventuring, and why they happen.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 11, 2006)

Having just read over this ever-lengthening thread, I have but one question:

This elephant in the corner that people keep referring to...why hasn't somebody killed it yet? That's some perfectly good ExP sittin' there!  

   ::draws sword::

"CHAAAAAAAARRRGGE!!!!!"


Lanefan


----------



## Numion (Jul 11, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The answer to the second point is htat a lantern is "mortal"; it has a lifespan, it is lit, it gives light, and it "dies" when the oil runs out.  The everburning torch is "immortal".  The god of darkness/night/whatever may overlook the occasional everburning torch, but when you make an industry of it you spit in her face.




That would certainly be a funny backstory for a campaign world:

"What be this here wasteland?"

"It was once a grand city, a jewel of an ancient, glorius civilization .. brought down by the hubris of the last emperor."

"Let me guess .. it was the same old: opening portals to abyss and deals with the demons, right?"

"Nope. It was his _public works program!"_  

I know you're at least semi-serious, but I just don't see the D&D gods as taking offense to streetlights.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 11, 2006)

*thinks Hussar is ignoring him...* You're allowed to disagree Hussar. I just will disagree with your disagreement.  

Btw that page only said "consorters with Slacerians". It didn't say "Wizards were taught by Slacerians." Just that they "infringed on" the power of druid-sorcerers and sorcery in general.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 11, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Continual flame = 50.01gp, 20’/40’, permanent (1 ever)
> 
> Continual flame = 0gp per year (plus 50gp once)




The scroll cost for Continual flame is 425 gp.  That should probably be your comparison number.  A comparison might be if you could buy a car for $20,000 that runs on gas, or one for $120,000 that never needs gas, which would you buy?

In most cases, the $20,000, because only the very rich can afford the luxury of the $120,000 car.  Certainly I couldn't get the more expensive one.  The same would apply to a D&D world, I'd expect.  425 gp is about equal to the yearly wage of a skilled laborer - someone with a +6 profession skill eaning 8 gp a week.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 11, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> That would certainly be a funny backstory for a campaign world:
> 
> "What be this here wasteland?"
> 
> ...




Nor do you have to.  The point is not, and never has been, that this is how a campaign world *must* be, but merely that this is as likely as, say, magitech.  BTW, this is exactly what happened to Atlantis.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2006)

> The scroll cost for Continual flame is 425 gp. That should probably be your comparison number.



That's hilarious.

"Hmm, should we have the mage spend whole his day making a single scroll for 425gp, or go out and spend 12 seconds casting two _continual flame_ spells for 50gp each?"

Sounds like typical government buracracy thinking.

You know, I really haven't cared about this thread. I just did the comparison numbers out of curiosity, for myself. I posted them for anyone who'd be interested. It's quite entertaining to see people work out reasons why the concept wouldn't work -- mages running around with _dispel magic_, mages charging 425gp for a scroll instead of just casting the spell, gods sending servants on unholy quests to destroy streetlights, . . . all quite humorous.

Quasqueton


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 11, 2006)

No more humorous than clerics and wizards running around performing free public service, or a source of food energy (magic) existing in a world that is never exploited, or the idea of D&D gods that interact with the world but fail to do so when their interests are at stake.   

BTW, Q, you're missing the point.  The point is not that magic streetlights _cannot_ work, merely that it does not _automatically follow_ that they would work, or that, if they did, it would be a good idea.  

Magitech is a very real possibility, and can make for an interesting world.  But it is not the _only_ possibility, nor is it the only possibility that can be derived logically from the RAW.  It is a stylistic difference -- nothing more, nothing less.

At least, IMHO.  

RC


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 11, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> "Hey, Bob, there's another streetlight. Call the mage and have him snuff it out. Oh, wait, it's a normal oil-burning lamp. Nevermind. Let's just walk through the alley."




Try this conversation between a pair of thieves (we'll call them Joe and Bob):

Joe: "Hey Bob, there's another streetlight. Snuff it."
Bob: (after checking it out) "...ummm, Joe, I can't! It's magic."
Joe: "Awww, damnit! That's the third alley this week...farking mayor and his farking magical lights. I tell ya, something's gotta be done or there's not gonna be anyplace left to hide in the whole city!"
Bob: "Yeah...maybe the guild should do something."

That's the difference...most lights can be temporarily PUT OUT by any smart thief. Continual Flames can't. So...instead, you make them go away.

The point everyone's making is that ubiquitous magical light can be very mood-breaking in a game. Some of us like the notion of medieval feeling cities lit by the guttering flames of torches and lamps. It's just cool.

Magical streetlights...not so much. As an occasional thing, sure. But everywhere? Just doesn't work for me. It's not a verisimilitude problem so much as an atmosphere problem.

It's the same issue I have with the various dead raising spells and the ones that cure disease. It's all fine and dandy that they're pricey, but their very existence means that kings (who have the resources of a whole nation!) and most rich preople would never die prematurely. So, unlike the poor, the rich aren't subject to disease or premature death. Can you even comprehend how that might change a society?

It's simply mind-boggling to try to carry the RAW to their logical conclusion.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 11, 2006)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> That's hilarious.
> 
> "Hmm, should we have the mage spend whole his day making a single scroll for 425gp, or go out and spend 12 seconds casting two _continual flame_ spells for 50gp each?"
> 
> Sounds like typical government buracracy thinking.




What, wizards in your world don't charge money for their skills?  I mean sure, the wizard in the party may do it for cost, but if you're comparing labor+materials to materials only, of course the comparison will be off.

I've examined this issue sufficiently for my own uses, over and over.  I've never seen a convincing argument that magic would have a serious, world-wide effect.  Convincing to me, at least.


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 11, 2006)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> The scroll cost for Continual flame is 425 gp.  That should probably be your comparison number.  A comparison might be if you could buy a car for $20,000 that runs on gas, or one for $120,000 that never needs gas, which would you buy?
> 
> In most cases, the $20,000, because only the very rich can afford the luxury of the $120,000 car.  Certainly I couldn't get the more expensive one.  The same would apply to a D&D world, I'd expect.  425 gp is about equal to the yearly wage of a skilled laborer - someone with a +6 profession skill eaning 8 gp a week.





I see no reason whatsoever why the scroll cost of the spell should be the basis of the comparison.  Please explain why it should be.


----------



## Numion (Jul 11, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The point everyone's making is that ubiquitous magical light can be very mood-breaking in a game. Some of us like the notion of medieval feeling cities lit by the guttering flames of torches and lamps. It's just cool.
> 
> Magical streetlights...not so much. As an occasional thing, sure. But everywhere? Just doesn't work for me. It's not a verisimilitude problem so much as an atmosphere problem.




What if the everburning torches, um, _flickered?_ Would that be cool?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 11, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I see no reason whatsoever why the scroll cost of the spell should be the basis of the comparison.  Please explain why it should be.




Because, according the RAW, if you want to get that spell in a useable form, that's what it will cost?

I suppose you could go with the Spellcasting and Services chart in the PHB, in which case it would cost you 150 gp+material costs.  Still much more expensive.


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 11, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No more humorous than clerics and wizards running around performing free public service




Whoever said the clerics and wizards were doing it for free?  Wizards would probably charge the standard fees for doing it, Id assume!  They be the technicians of the world.    



> Magitech is a very real possibility, and can make for an interesting world.  But it is not the _only_ possibility, nor is it the only possibility that can be derived logically from the RAW.  It is a stylistic difference -- nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> At least, IMHO.
> 
> RC




Who is arguing against that?  Thats completely reasonable.  Ive kinda gotten lost through this thread.  Magic as technology _can_ follow logically from the rules.  It can also _not_, for several reason (gods, secretive wizards wanting magic kept for the elite, magic hating societies, etc)  Its up tp the setting builder to decide which they want, and come up with the reasoning themselves.  You can rationalize almost anything.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2006)

> Can you even comprehend how that might change a society?
> 
> It's simply mind-boggling to try to carry the RAW to their logical conclusion.



Yep, I can comprehend it, and my game world works with it just fine. And I don't have anything near like the Eberron magitech stuff -- my world is core only.

For instance, the price to enter the Wizard's Guild includes the creation of an _everburning torch_. This light is passed from the guild to the government as part of its taxes each month.

Quasqueton


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 11, 2006)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Because, according the RAW, if you want to get that spell in a useable form, that's what it will cost?




Only if you want the spell in a portable form to be cast later.



> I suppose you could go with the Spellcasting and Services chart in the PHB, in which case it would cost you 150 gp+material costs.  Still much more expensive.





There you go.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2006)

> BTW, Q, you're missing the point. The point is not that magic streetlights cannot work, merely that it does not automatically follow that they would work, or that, if they did, it would be a good idea.



And I've not said anything like that. I just posted the cost comparisons of the mundane vs. magical methods. And then people started talking about mages vandalizing magical streetlights, mages charging unnecessary prices, and gods taking umbrage at the existance of the lights.

Quasqueton


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 11, 2006)

I won't bother with this thread anymore. I've only read the last page or so. I've ignored it for the most part because the whole concept of "Has D&D become too D&Dish?" is like asking "Has Star Trek become too Star Trekish?" I mean, D&D has always been D&Dish.

Quasqueton


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 11, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> <Snip comment about magitech not being the ONLY logical/mature/verisimilitudinous result of the RAW.>
> 
> Who is arguing against that? Thats completely reasonable. Ive kinda gotten lost through this thread. Magic as technology can follow logically from the rules. It can also not, for several reason (gods, secretive wizards wanting magic kept for the elite, magic hating societies, etc) Its up tp the setting builder to decide which they want, and come up with the reasoning themselves. You can rationalize almost anything.




Umm...Hussar was, actually. He was claiming that per the RAW, magitech was the most verisimilitudinous (to steal his made-up word) result.

Raven Crowking, I, and a few others have been claiming that while that was one feasible result, it wasn't the only (or even most likely) feasible result.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> And I've not said anything like that. I just posted the cost comparisons of the mundane vs. magical methods. And then people started talking about mages vandalizing magical streetlights, mages charging unnecessary prices, and gods taking umbrage at the existance of the lights.




Q, if that's the case, I apologize. I had assumed (wrongly) that you were taking up the torch (everburning or not...) of Hussar's opinion. Since you weren't, that makes the critiques irrelevant.

However, all of those things you mention are (IMO) perfectly reasonable possible responses to magical streetlight. Which attitude prevails depends entirely on the persnicketyness (is that a word?) of the gods, and the psychological makeup of your NPCs: something every DM has to determine for his own world (or even something he determines differently for each culture in his world).

For instance, in Greek myth, a titan (Prometheus, btw) was punished for all eternity for daring to give mortals simple FIRE. Just imagine how they would have treated one who provided them magic...   

So in that setting, the gods potentially being pissed at magical streetlights is NOT out of line. Just to make a point.  

On another topic, someone asked me a question... 



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> What if the everburning torches, um, flickered? Would that be cool?




Umm...it would help. But they're still cool - as in, won't catch things on fire, or keep people warm for that matter. Which a torch does a poor job of, but a somewhat more sizable fire provides both light and heat.

My personal preference is for non-permanent magical light. I wouldn't mind if spellcasters could create cool light and maintain it as he desired. But for them to be able to make permanent glow rocks seems a trifle _Nodwick_ to me.

That gets to the heart of what I was talking about when I started the thread. To me anyway, standard D&D is starting to look suspiciously similar to the parodies of itself. And I don't really think that's a good thing. :\ 

As always, YMMV.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 11, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> That gets to the heart of what I was talking about when I started the thread. To me anyway, standard D&D is starting to look suspiciously similar to the parodies of itself. And I don't really think that's a good thing. :\
> 
> As always, YMMV.




Well...if you turn it around and view it from the other side, you could say that the parodies become more and more like the thing they are targeting. Dunno if that helps, though. Or you might say that D&D is flexible enough to portray totally silly fantasy stories right beside epic world-shattering ones if the players know how to use it.  

And do you remember the cartoon strips that used to be in the 1E Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide? D&D always had a bit of self-parody going back then...and I think that's perfectly fine. We're in it for the occasional laugh as well as for all the rest, right?


----------



## Numion (Jul 11, 2006)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> That gets to the heart of what I was talking about when I started the thread. To me anyway, standard D&D is starting to look suspiciously similar to the parodies of itself. And I don't really think that's a good thing. :\




From what I've seen most of the parodies don't deal with the issues brought up in this thread. The bread and butter of parodies are adventuring group dynamics and PC-NPC relations.

Like if you look at OotS, Nodwick or KoDT it's mostly about those things. OotS makes more fun of the rules, but has shifted towards topics I mention above.

So I don't really agree with you there. One central theme of both Nodwick and KoDT, the abusing of hired help, has got to be as old as D&D itself. So is another central theme, the adventurers actually causing more harm than good, and then being mostly oblivious as to why the townsfolk aren't grateful to them.

YMMV, but I think D&D itself has matured* away from those prospects, mostly because the players have matured (as in being older nowadays).

* I know, the word ..


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *thinks Hussar is ignoring him...* You're allowed to disagree Hussar. I just will disagree with your disagreement.
> 
> Btw that page only said "consorters with Slacerians". It didn't say "Wizards were taught by Slacerians." Just that they "infringed on" the power of druid-sorcerers and sorcery in general.




Heh, I'm not ignoring you.  I thought you agreed with me.  

There's a pretty strong suggestion there in those few pages, that the slarcians were the ones to teach wizard magic to the world.  True, there are other interpretations, but, IMO, it sounds like the Slarcians were the ones.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2006)

> That gets to the heart of what I was talking about when I started the thread. To me anyway, standard D&D is starting to look suspiciously similar to the parodies of itself. And I don't really think that's a good thing.




Those parodies exist because they have existed in the game.  If no one in game ever did anything like the things that OOTS or Nodwick parodies, then they wouldn't be half as funny.  

And, yes, I do believe that if a setting is designed from the point of view that the RAW is the physics of the world and the world grows out of those physics, then the existence of low level permanent magics would have a large impact on the design of that world.  Even if that impact is the idea that the state actively attempts to squash magic.

My beef is with settings that simply ignore the implications.  Taking raise dead and remove disease as an example.  If these spells exist and the setting is RAW in demographics, then it makes zero sense for the king to die of syphilis.  Any adventure which is based on this, makes no sense.

On the point of Keep on the Borderlands.  I love that module.  I really do.  But, I also realize that there are some serious problems with it as well.  Considering most of the races in the Caves actively hate each other, why are they living side by side?  Given the rather large numbers in the Caves, where are they getting their food from?  Sure, they have a couple of store rooms, but, within a very short period of time, they will have depleted the local wild life.  Who's supplying them?

Now, those make for great plot hooks.  But, since the answers aren't in the text itself, there has to be some criticism laid.  At the time, no one cared.  You ran the module and the rest wasn't important.  Now, we try to at least make a nod towards verisimilitude.

BTW, just as a point about continual flame and atmosphere.  Continual flame gives EXACTLY the same light as a torch.  The only difference being it's cold and not hot.  So, from an atmosphere point of view, there is little difference.  You still have the flickering of lights.  Just less smoke.

Yes, I do believe that examining the effects of the RAW on a setting is a more seasoned (there's a MUCH better word than mature) approach to design than handwaving them and/or ignoring them.  And, I believe that doing so results in a setting which has far fewer holes in it.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 12, 2006)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> I doudt the local thieves guild would be too happy about all these permanent lights everywhere either.




Actually, some studies have shown that better lighting actually _increases_ the crime rate. Seems the thieves like to be able to see what they're doing. & that being spotted isn't so big a concern.

Although, I think your underlying point is still valid.

Besides...this is fantasy so no facts from the real world are applicable, right?


----------



## rounser (Jul 12, 2006)

> YMMV, but I think D&D itself has matured* away from those prospects, mostly because the players have matured (as in being older nowadays).
> 
> * I know, the word ..



Yeah, it does vary.  I suggest we replace this misleading and inappropriate word with a much better descriptor for what's ocurring: decadence.  "A decline in or loss of excellence, obstructing the pursuit of ideals."

The decline in excellence is making the setting a slave to the rules; the obstruction of the pursuit of ideals is the compromise of the setting dictated by overextending the rules, such that we lose sight of what they're there for in the first place.  It's the monkey on 3E's back, IMO.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2006)

However, Rounser, that only applies if you think that settings with giant holes in them are excellent.  

To me, consistency is the goal.  If the setting is inconsistent, ie. allows for the sale but not the purchase of magic items, then it is not consistent.  There's a giant gaping hole there that needs to be explained and not hand waved.

What you see as making a setting slave to the rules, I see as actually examining how those rules interact with the setting.  By ignoring or handwaving that interaction, you create a setting which has glaring inconsistencies.  You can either change the RAW, which is perfectly acceptable since that changed RAW becomes the new RAW for that setting, or you can change the setting to conform to the RAW.

However, ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away.  

On another note, I gave a bit of thought to RC's point about the WLD.  Now, the WLD is a fairly simplistic dungeon.  However, the inconsistent elements are explained in the book.  Either it's explicitely stated that it is being handwaved (such as food issues) or it establishes new RAW (such as no web spells and no summoning).  There is an attempt by the designers to at least recognise the inconsistencies and either deal with them or put a fence around them.  They are not ignored.  They are specifically called out.  Thus the issue of food becomes a non-issue because the RAW of that setting says its a non-issue.  The reason for it is entirely metagaming but, you can wrap it up in setting specific dressing if you like.  The fact that it's an extradimensional prison allows you a lot more leeway in things like that.

Me, I added a bit where the angels performed a rite to kickstart a basic food chain.  Fine creatures grow at a very high rate and are thus eaten by diminuitive creatures.  However, nothing bigger than that can reproduce.  Thus, no kobold babies, but, lots of mice to eat.  

However, I didn't need to do that for the WLD to work.  I did it because I wanted to.  An extradimentional prison could simply not allow the inmates to eat or procreate similar to the Astral plane.  I can apply existing rules to the setting and it works (sort of).  

But, this illustrates my point very well.  By examining those basic issues, I am looking at how the RAW of that setting affects that setting.  If I don't like it, I can change it and that's fine.  But, my point has always been, there should be an examination of the effects of RAW on a setting before the setting is finalized.  If there are wonky interactions, then something needs to be changed.  And it's that examination process which has grown out of the art of campaign creation over the years.  

Yes, you can play a low magic game with 3.5 rules.  You can't play a low magic setting with ALL the 3.5 rules though.  To play a low magic setting, you have to change the RAW.  This is a given.  When a setting tries for a certain feel without changing any of the RAW it has glaring inconsistencies.  The main example I've used is the existence of low level permanent magics.  For gaming as an art form (wow, how's that for pretentious  ) to grow, it must be self reflexive.  Just like any art form, you have to have some sense of the theory of that art in order to move it in a new direction.

Yes, raw talent goes a long way.  But, its those who have raw talent AND a grounding in theory who can really move things forward.


----------



## rounser (Jul 12, 2006)

> However, Rounser, that only applies if you think that settings with giant holes in them are excellent.



Suspension of disbelief is a personal thing, but IMO your cures are far worse than the disease.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Suspension of disbelief is a personal thing, but IMO your cures are far worse than the disease.




True.  SOD is always personal.  I can swallow a lot of impossible things.  Heck, I did swallow them for a long time.  However, as time has passed, I've actually coughed up a couple of those impossible things and started to look at them a little more closely.

To me, simply continuing to ignore them for the sake of some sort of genre convention is ridiculous.  If the only way you can have a particular genre is to never examine it, then the genre needs to die.


----------



## rounser (Jul 12, 2006)

> If the only way you can have a particular genre is to never examine it, then the genre needs to die.



There is a tendency for geeks to want to analyse everything and apply logic and science to it....that's what makes us geeks.  D&D isn't a science, and in treating it as such, you'll destroy a lot of the things that make it attractive in the first place.  You may note other areas in your life where analysis and imposing logic are also counterproductive.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 12, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, consistency is the goal. If the setting is inconsistent, ie. allows for the sale but not the purchase of magic items, then it is not consistent. There's a giant gaping hole there that needs to be explained and not hand waved.
> 
> What you see as making a setting slave to the rules, I see as actually examining how those rules interact with the setting. By ignoring or handwaving that interaction, you create a setting which has glaring inconsistencies. You can either change the RAW, which is perfectly acceptable since that changed RAW becomes the new RAW for that setting, or you can change the setting to conform to the RAW.
> 
> However, ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away.




Fair enough. This is where I agree with you completely. I think the setting should be internally consistent. I don't really think we're after settings that are self-reflective so much as settings that actually consider their implications. That's definitely a good thing (TM) and reflects a more "mature" (or, put another way, well thought out) approach to setting design.

Where I (and Raven Crowking, I think) disagree is the notion that substantial amounts of that can't be fixed without changing anything about the RAW except for societal attitudes about magic, which, while hinted at in the RAW, are not explicitly stated.

You are correct that a world that never developed any societies that exploit magic is not consistent with the RAW. And I firmly believe that it's much easier to provide a setting with less ubiquitous magic by altering the Core Rules of D&D. Either substantially so (such as by using a variant PHB, like _Iron Heroes_) or more subtly. Altering the mechanics of magic IS the most important change if you want internal consistency.

And I agree that a setting with consistent rules is a good thing. Some times, the changes can be done subtly, whereas other times, more drastic measures are necessary. It how depends on how much you have to change, and what other assumptions, outside the RAW, you use in your setting design.

My two cents.


----------



## rounser (Jul 12, 2006)

D&D isn't logical, it's not even internally consistent!  

_insults removed_

No ecosystem as we know it could possibly support that number of predators, and no civilisation as we know it could survive them.  Society would be completely alien to the one we know if magic existed in commonplace use, if trolls waylaid travellers and attacked towns, or if a single man could defeat an army. _insults removed_

_insults removed_

_Rounser, if you can't participate without name calling, don't participate. Thanks - Plane Sailing_


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 12, 2006)

Perhaps I overstated it with "mature."   

How about "interesting?" I appreciate the fun that comes from taking a couple elements from the RAW and extrapolating them to their logical conclusion.

No, I don't think it's necessary (or even possible) to do this with everything in the game. But doing it with a few things can lead to some interesting exercises in creativity. And in one sense, Hussar is right. Ignoring obvious implications from in your face rules (like the magic system, for example) is (IMO) a poor choice. Considering them and addressing them by contrast, can make for a far more interesting setting.

Just my opinion. I do think the game shouldn't become so self-reflective that it can't readily handle a different approach. But again, that's just me.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jul 12, 2006)

you dont need to change a single thing in the RAW to have a non-magitech world. what you need to do is enforce all of RAW. Including the NPC pay charts in the DMG. Once you actually enforce a normal D&D economy it becomes apparent why omnipresent magic is not a likelyhood. 

   Take government public works magic projects for instance....
A large city has between 12,000 and 25,000 people. The wages for NPC's run between 2gp per month for a laborer to 8gp a week for a sage... the majority of npc's will be laborers and lower paid jobs just like in the real world, but lets ignore that and just take an average of 5 gp per week per person or 20gp per month, and 140 gp per year. Assuming a maximum population of 25,000 people each making average money thats a total GDP of 350,000gp per year. 

   It also says under taxes and tithes that a truly oppressive government took up to 1/5 of that in taxes. For a total of 70,000gp per year for the governments total budget.  Now its only fair to assume that around half of that gets dumped on paying civil servants and soldiers. leaving the city government with 35,000 per year. Enough to buy 17 +1 weapons for fighting magical enemies, raising dead important people, fighting deseases and hiring the all important random adventuring party for a grossly inflated price compared to what everyone else in the world makes of course.  And this assumes that the government wants to spend every copper it brings in each and every year. 

  Take for instance the 150 gp permanent street lights.... that means for an entire years excess money (if thier administrators are immensely better then ours in real life of course, lol) the government could buy 200 street lights per year. With a 30ft light radius that would illuminate around 6000 sq ft... or a little over a mile, of completely open terrain where the lights can be used to best advantage without being obstructed. 

   Of course you cant pack 25,000 people into 6,000 square feet can you? Assuming a mere 10sq ft per person (slightly higher then New york city, where everyone built up instead of out) that means you would need to illuminate 250,000 square ft. Thus a completely averaged income city with an oppressive tax rate could illuminate its whole city in only 12 years, if it spent every spare dime on light, no lights were ever damaged or stolen, no emergencies involving unforseen expenses arose in over a decade, no city politician got it into his head to appropriate extra funds for a pet project or his own pocket, and none of the cities nobles balked over thier tax dollars being spent so peasents could have magical lights. That sounds amazingly likely doesnt it? 

   And this complete interpretation of the RAW is exactly why i dont use magitech worlds, or magical wallmarts. Its only believable and likely if you ignore the parts of the rules that make it unlikely, like a haflway believable economy. And thats a part of the RAW that i refuse to abandon, lest my games devolve into Final Fantasy clones.


----------



## Nightfall (Jul 12, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heh, I'm not ignoring you.  I thought you agreed with me.
> 
> There's a pretty strong suggestion there in those few pages, that the slarcians were the ones to teach wizard magic to the world.  True, there are other interpretations, but, IMO, it sounds like the Slarcians were the ones.




Sounded differently to me but okay. I answered this anyway in my "Ask the Sage thread". Also checked with Trick, since he's good at fact checking just in case.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 12, 2006)

This is simply a matter of very differing points of view in this discussion. For example, to me the Core Rulebooks are simply a collection of tools and rules that I can take or leave at my leisure while building a campaign world. To me, it has a sign saying "If you need to resolve a situation, or describe it in rules terms, here's our suggestions for that." That's the way I handled every edition of D&D, and in fact any RPG. To me, having to adhere to ALL RAW while building something just because I use some of them has never been a question or an issue...I simply don't. I take what I need to describe the world I envision, and what I want to add because it fits, and discard the rest. And especially with D&D 3E, a game that offers so many options and rules for all kinds of games, it's obvious to me that I only apply those rules that I really want in a situation, not all of them.

To keep with the current example...just because clerics of 3rd level are able to cast _Continual Flame_, the RAW state how much the spell costs, how much a spellcaster charges for casting it, and how many clerics of 3rd level should exist in a settlement of a certain size, doesn't mean they run around illuminating their city, for free or otherwise. And usually, it's never a problem. Why? Because most players know that humans are weird, illogical creatures that don't automatically do what would be the logical conclusion of a row of facts. Quite often, they do the opposite.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2006)

Just as a point about the size of cities.  Feudal era cities are much more densely populated than modern cities.  Well, maybe not all modern cities, but, still.  Rome had a million people crammed into a couple of square miles.  You could walk from one side of Rome and back in an afternoon.  

The point you are missing BoredGremlin, is that a govenment need not pay in cash.  My example of paying with land works quite well.  Also, applying income tax in a feudal setting is very anachronistic.  You don't pay a percentage of your wages, you pay a flat tax generally, based on the land you own.

But, all this is somewhat beside the point.

At first glance, it appears that there are two camps in the lighting the city discussion.  However, for my purposes, there is only one.  Both sides are relying on the RAW to define their positions.  In other words, they are examining the RAW to determine how RAW affects the setting.

IMO, this is a very good thing.  I never said that an examination of RAW must lead to magitech.  That is, of course, only one interpretation among many.  However, what I did say was that in order to acheive consistency, you have to examine how RAW affects the setting.  Either to change the setting or to change the RAW.  It is that examination process which leads to more consistency, not necessarily the answers that come from any given examination.

In a system as complicated as DnD, it is extremely unlikely that any of us would come up to a common idea as to the implications.  And that's great.  That means that the RAW will support a wide variety of ideas.  Great.  But, simply ignoring RAW and its implications is not a better way to develop a setting.  It's a better way to have giant gaping holes in the setting, but not a better way to develop a setting.

Take the idea of the number of predators.  Now, if we accept that there are so many predators, then there should be some reason in the campaign setting as to why.  Perhaps elf makes for very healthy meat.  I dunno.  Don't care since my settings generally don't include so many.

However, simply ignoring it and saying, "Well, it's DND" is overly simplistic.  To me, ignoring the elephant in the corner is far more short sighted than actually making some sort of attempt to develop a workable solution.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Whoever said the clerics and wizards were doing it for free?  Wizards would probably charge the standard fees for doing it, Id assume!  They be the technicians of the world.




Sorry, but I was "answering" Q there, and, like Kid C, I expect that at the very least spellcasters would charge the labour costs listed in the PHB.  I know my auto mechanic charges them!



> Who is arguing against that?  Thats completely reasonable.  Ive kinda gotten lost through this thread.  Magic as technology _can_ follow logically from the rules.  It can also _not_, for several reason (gods, secretive wizards wanting magic kept for the elite, magic hating societies, etc)  Its up tp the setting builder to decide which they want, and come up with the reasoning themselves.  You can rationalize almost anything.




Well, then, you and I are in agreement.  Hussar, however, may disagree with you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> One central theme of both Nodwick and KoDT, the abusing of hired help, has got to be as old as D&D itself. So is another central theme, the adventurers actually causing more harm than good, and then being mostly oblivious as to why the townsfolk aren't grateful to them.
> 
> YMMV, but I think D&D itself has matured* away from those prospects, mostly because the players have matured (as in being older nowadays).
> 
> * I know, the word ..




I agree absolutely.  And I loved those old cartoons in the DMG.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2006)

RC said:
			
		

> Well, then, you and I are in agreement. Hussar, however, may disagree with you.




Hang on, read what I wrote above.  Althought, when you think about it, how is it different?  Me insisting that low level permanent magics would affect a setting you or others saying that it won't?  Either way, it's still examining the effects of low level magic on the setting.

Which has been my main point all along.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On another note, I gave a bit of thought to RC's point about the WLD.  Now, the WLD is a fairly simplistic dungeon.  However, the inconsistent elements are explained in the book.  Either it's explicitely stated that it is being handwaved (such as food issues) or it establishes new RAW (such as no web spells and no summoning).  There is an attempt by the designers to at least recognise the inconsistencies and either deal with them or put a fence around them.  They are not ignored.  They are specifically called out.  Thus the issue of food becomes a non-issue because the RAW of that setting says its a non-issue.




So, not unlike the 1e DMG section on ecology, right?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2006)

Have no idea.

This is most certainly NOT an edition fight and I'll thank you not to turn it into one.

Don't know what the ecology section in the 1e DMG says, nor do I particularly care.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, simply continuing to ignore them for the sake of some sort of genre convention is ridiculous.  If the only way you can have a particular genre is to never examine it, then the genre needs to die.




I would say that this argument applies to the RAW at least as much as it does to the worlds that RAW is applied to, or expanded from.

The "edition war" as you say only comes up as a rebuttal to your idea that these things have changed.  The 1e DMG had the same sort of description of ecology that you described creating for the WLD, and offered some of the same advice that the WLD does for dealing with the issue.  In other words, if an answer in the RAW means this isn't an "elephant in the corner", and you are saying that this edition removes said elephant, you need to know what the previous RAW said.

JMHO, of course.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> IMO, this is a very good thing.  I never said that an examination of RAW must lead to magitech.  That is, of course, only one interpretation among many.




It sure seemed to me, way back when, when I said that an examination of RAW does not necessarily lead to magitech that you took issue with my statement.     

Of course, I could be wrong about that.....It's been known to happen.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 12, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> There is a tendency for geeks to want to analyse everything and apply logic and science to it....that's what makes us geeks.  D&D isn't a science, and in treating it as such, you'll destroy a lot of the things that make it attractive in the first place.




I don't think anyone is saying that D&D is a science.  What some of us are saying, however, is that considering the ramifications of some of the things that exist in the game world is a good thing and helps us achieve our suspension of disbelief more easily and makes us more satisfied with the campaign worlds we play in. That's all.



> You may note other areas in your life where analysis and imposing logic are also counterproductive.




Personally, I couldn't name one in mine.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 12, 2006)

> and you are saying that this edition removes said elephant, you need to know what the previous RAW said.




No I am not.  I never said that any specific edition removes said elephant. Actually, I recall specifically pointing to the Slave Lords modules as a step forward.  

This isn't edition specific.  This has to do with the genre which isn't really tied all that tightly to edition.  But, it is tied to time.  As time has passed, we have begun to question elements that were largely ignored in the past.  And this has given rise to new forms within the genre.  

Heck, it's not like this is new.  As was mentioned more than once, the Known World examined these ideas quite a lot, twenty years ago.  It's just that now, it has become a lot more prevalent with some recent releases - Eberron and Ptolus being two of the most obvious.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2006)

Hussar, I must have misunderstood your earlier posts on this topic.   

I guess we're in agreement then.    

Of course, I still don't know why you argued with my (and others') earlier responses if this was the case.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 12, 2006)

Yay, we all get along.

So, we're in agreement that the RAW can lead to numerous different outcomes, but that the important thing is to consider them.

Nice to know I can now have my low-magic D&D campaign then without anyone jumping up and down like a rabid jackrabbit going "It's not D&D! It's not D&D!!" ad infinitum.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2006)

Or telling you to just pick a different system.


----------



## Numion (Jul 12, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or telling you to just pick a different system.




What about we consider building a game world from other systems rules? Say, GURPS?

In GURPSworld you know you're in over your head when you're cornered by a drunken hobo, an albino in a wheelchair and onehanded junkie .. those guys have loaded up points from disadvantages! They're _badass!_  

Disclaimer: no insult meant to real-life hobos, albinos in wheelchairs or onehanded people


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2006)

It is not unreasonable to say "pick a different system".  DnD will do low magic, but, not out of the box.  It takes a fair bit of work to do it.  So, why not use a system that DOES work out of the box?

It's not a case of it not being DnD, just that some people think it's better to drive nails with a hammer and not a wrench.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It is not unreasonable to say "pick a different system".  DnD will do low magic, but, not out of the box.  It takes a fair bit of work to do it.  So, why not use a system that DOES work out of the box?




Excepting, of course, that this thread has demonstrated rather conclusively that you can do low magic with 3.X right out of the box.

At most, you would make the following changes:

*  1/2 XP according the CR.
*  No magic shops.
*  Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world.

That doesn't seem to be a fair bit of work to me.  YMMV.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 13, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Excepting, of course, that this thread has demonstrated rather conclusively that you can do low magic with 3.X right out of the box.
> 
> At most, you would make the following changes:
> 
> ...




I clicked on this thread out of morbid curiosity, and now I can't hold back commenting. Appologies to all! This is based off my time Playing in a low-magic campaign that was run very poorly balance-wise.

If you're still allowing full spellcasting classes, it isn't a low-magic game. Rate of level advancement has nothing to do with low or high magic. Magic shops aren't in the rules so that's unnecessary to spell out. And, I'm guessing the third really means "Don't use treasure tables?" So here's my list:

1) No PC can have more than 1/2 levels in a spellcasting class.
2) Treasure tables are out.
3) XP is given ad hoc without regard to CR by DM's judgement.

The first limits the magic of PCs, since a Fighter 10 and a Druid 10, neither of whom have magical items doesn't work (personal experience playing the Fighter - it isn't fun). 

The second means that the DM won't adhere to the treasure tables. I suppose it isn't a necessary rule, since the DM is free to give out treasure as he or she desires anyway, but it's a deviation from the Monster entries, so its safest to make note of it. 

The last is important becuase monster difficultly will be hugely affected by lack of magical abilities in the party. For example, monster flight becomes much more powerful, and thus should yield higher XP amounts than normal. The DM might also want to give out more XP than CR would indicate, since the PCs will be fighting things far below their book CRs. (It isn't a requirement, but I highly reccomend it).


I'd still recommend Iron Heroes, though. It's fun!


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2006)

> If you're still allowing full spellcasting classes, it isn't a low-magic game. Rate of level advancement has nothing to do with low or high magic. Magic shops aren't in the rules so that's unnecessary to spell out. And, I'm guessing the third really means "Don't use treasure tables?" So here's my list:




QFT

It still absolutely astounds me that people think that a full caster campaign is low magic.  If the party includes a wizzie and a cleric that means that there are spells being cast in pretty much EVERY encounter throughout the life of the campaign.  Even if it's just curing spells.  How can that possibly be equated with low magic?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 13, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'd still recommend Iron Heroes, though. It's fun!




QFT

Woo-hoo!! I got to QFT something! I'm so excited!!

Now if I can just stop people from telling me that my _Iron Heroes_ games reflect me "not playing D&D."

Nah, I'm dreamin'.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It still absolutely astounds me that people think that a full caster campaign is low magic.  If the party includes a wizzie and a cleric that means that there are spells being cast in pretty much EVERY encounter throughout the life of the campaign.  Even if it's just curing spells.  How can that possibly be equated with low magic?




"Low magic", like "High Magic", is a relative term.  Relative to the typcial 3e game, a low magic game can easily exist where *all* the PCs are spellcasters.

* 1/2 XP according to CR.
* No magic shops.
* Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world.

1/2 XP according to CR, btw, is going to dramatically slow down level gain as PCs hit higher levels.  Because you are limiting their magical treasure, and using world-approriate encounters, they will continue to fight lower CR creatures, which in turn continue to be a challenge because of their lower magical theshhold.  This has a pretty big effect in maintaining a low magic campaign.


----------



## hong (Jul 13, 2006)

The day I saw Exalted described as a "grim 'n gritty" setting was when I decided these labels are as meaningful as the boil on my left toe that is slowly turning black and oozing straw-coloured pus, the same colour as the hair on the girl I saw but for a moment last Tuesday as I boarded the train back to old Kentucky for the amputation procedure.


Hong "is slightly late for the Bulwer-Lytton awards" Ooi


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2006)

I'm going to regret this.

How can you label a campaign low magic when the vast majority of encounters see spells being cast.  In an all caster party, every challenge will be responded to by magic.  

By RC's definition, Harry Potter would be low magic.  Every character is a caster.  While there might be a number of magical gimmicks, it isn't magic items that overcome challenges, but Harry and Co's mastery of magical spells.  They advance pretty slowly - it has been six years after all and Harry isn't even a full wizard and gets his butt handed to him by full wizards frequently.

I'm all for a bit of relativity, but I gotta go with Hong on this one.  When you can call a setting where every encounter features magic  a low magic setting, well, I would say that the label is about as meaningful as Rounser's definition of "Sword and Sorcery".


----------



## rounser (Jul 13, 2006)

> the label is about as meaningful as Rounser's definition of "Sword and Sorcery".



Give it a rest.  That argument was how many threads ago?  I could say something about how meaningful I find your thoughts, but I don't snipe at you behind your back about it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How can you label a campaign low magic when the vast majority of encounters see spells being cast.  In an all caster party, every challenge will be responded to by magic.




The terms "high" and "low" relate to some standard median.  In D&D 3.X, the standard median is very clearly spelled out.  From a D&D standpoint, anything significantly lower than this median is "low magic" and anything significantly higher than this median is "high magic".

From a literary standpoint, the terms "low magic" and "high magic" most often relate to how the characters interact with magic, rather than with the presence or absence of magic in the setting.  If most magical effects are within the means of the POV characters, or of the average citizen of the setting, the work is considered "high magic".  If most magical effects are not within the means of the POV characters, and not within the means of the average citizen of the setting, the work is considered "low magic".  In some cases these terms are used instead to represent what magic can accomplish; in this case keeping the higher level spells rare through controlling NPCs and slower level gain is sufficient.

The works of Robert E. Howard are almost always considered "low magic", yet magic is often used against the heroes...and even by the heroes (example, Solomon Kane's staff).  

From a literary standpoint, my game world would probably be considered "mid magic", were such a term in common parlance.  From a D&D 3e standpoint, however, it is definitely low magic.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Give it a rest.  That argument was how many threads ago?  I could say something about how meaningful I find your thoughts, but I don't snipe at you behind your back about it.




Dude, it was in this thread.  I'm hardly bringing up stuff from elsewhere when you brought it up here.

Raven, see, the basic disconnect is how much magic you seem to think is in the standard assumptions.  When 7th level characters get a +1 lumpy metal thing and a +1 set of armor and a couple of other odds and sods, I don't consider that terribly high magic.  It isn't until well into double digits that you get large amounts of magic items.  

I still maintain that if EVERY ENCOUNTER is countered by magic, that is, by definition, high magic.  Whether or not the party is using a magic lumpy thing or a fireball, doesn't matter.  If a campaign features the use of magic constantly, then it is not a low magic campaign.


----------



## rounser (Jul 13, 2006)

> Dude



Don't "dude" me, buddy.  

That was days ago (such that I don't even remember it being in this thread), and I'd long since left the thread till now, and you're still sniping.  I don't think much of your "meaningfulness" either.  Just drop it okay?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I still maintain that if EVERY ENCOUNTER is countered by magic, that is, by definition, high magic.  Whether or not the party is using a magic lumpy thing or a fireball, doesn't matter.  If a campaign features the use of magic constantly, then it is not a low magic campaign.




Well, then it becomes an argument about semantics.  If you don't consider what I'm talking about to be low magic, I certainly won't worry about convincing you otherwise.   

(And, if anyone ever complains about the game being "low magic", I'll just point them to you.   )


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2006)

True, it's an arguement about semantics.  Of course it is when you start inventing new definitions of words.  

DnD magic isn't defined by setting.  It's defined by level.  True, slowing the advance of characters would to some degree limit the magic they had, although the magic that they have in relation to the challenges they face would be the same regardless of the speed of advancement.

In other words, if a +1 sword is within the wealth limit of a given level, the fact that I spend twice the time at that level doesn't make the setting low magic.  It just means I spend a lot more time at the same level.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=80232


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 13, 2006)

I think the original question, at least, has been answered, kinda, and we came to the conclusion that D&D always has been its own genre in the greater universe of Fantasy, and that within itself, it can show an amazing bandwidth of variants that can cover a lot of different tastes. With the appearance of the D20 and the OGL licenses, we even have a wider spectrum of possible fantasy worlds to choose from that run the whole spectrum, from stuff like _Thieves' World_ and _Conan_ across _Midnight_ and the classic _Forgotten Realms_ to the more magitech settings of _Eberron_, _Iron Kingdoms_ and _Dragonmech_. Add to that a handful of variant rule systems like _Arcana Evolved_, _True20_ or _Iron Heroes_, and we should have something for really everybody.

And it all can be called Dungeons & Dragons, if we're not trying to play silly hairsplitting.

Incidentally, would you all mind lowering the snark level in this thread, please? Or has it run its course by now and can be closed anyway? Because there's easier ways to do that than sniping at each other.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2006)

Nice to know things haven't changed that much.    People still trumpetting from the rooftops about how the game has become all about the magic goodies like this was a sudden shift in gaming.

I still laugh about the fact that someone a few pages back talked about his low magic setting where he had a fighter with a +3 sword and how 3e is so high magic.  Never mind that by 3e rules, a 7th level fighter can't even AFFORD a +3 sword.  But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

If you want to believe that a game where each and every encounter is solved by the use of magic is a low magic campaign, then, well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  Conan is low magic because, while it still occurs in the stories, it does not occur in EVERY story, nor does it occur in EVERY EVENT in the story.

A campaign which features core casters is not low magic by any stretch of the definition.  It might be low wealth, but, then, well, all you're doing is screwing over the fighters.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jul 13, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If you want to believe that a game where each and every encounter is solved by the use of magic is a low magic campaign, then, well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  Conan is low magic because, while it still occurs in the stories, it does not occur in EVERY story, nor does it occur in EVERY EVENT in the story.
> 
> A campaign which features core casters is not low magic by any stretch of the definition.  It might be low wealth, but, then, well, all you're doing is screwing over the fighters.




You know, not every campaign which features a core caster will have each and every encounter solved by magic, too. He might participate in a lot of them with magic, and not do so in a few, but there will be precious few encounters, especially at lower level, where magic will be the only *solution* when the day is done, at sometimes it won't be a solution at all.

And yes, you can have a core caster with the group, and still have a low-magic campaign...you can even have a core caster as the villain and have a low-magic campaign. The label, as appropriate or not it might be, does not only describe the group's make-up and how they react to the encounters they face. It describes the whole campaign.


----------



## Rothe (Jul 13, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The terms "high" and "low" relate to some standard median.  In D&D 3.X, the standard median is very clearly spelled out.  From a D&D standpoint, anything significantly lower than this median is "low magic" and anything significantly higher than this median is "high magic".
> 
> *From a literary standpoint, the terms "low magic" and "high magic" most often relate to how the characters interact with magic, rather than with the presence or absence of magic in the setting.  If most magical effects are within the means of the POV characters, or of the average citizen of the setting, the work is considered "high magic".  If most magical effects are not within the means of the POV characters, and not within the means of the average citizen of the setting, the work is considered "low magic".  In some cases these terms are used instead to represent what magic can accomplish; in this case keeping the higher level spells rare through controlling NPCs and slower level gain is sufficient.*
> 
> ...




I like the part in bold as an initial working definition of "low" to "high" magic a little more helpful than low magic = no magic.  In a game I would use the term in two ways, is it a low/med/hig magic world and are the adventures low/med/high magic.  I wouldn't mix the two as a party of adventurers might be quite out of the ordinary compared to the average joe.

  The level of magic in a game is not just frequency of spell use to me but also the power of the spells relative to arms/non-magical means, the prevalence of permanent magical items, the prevalence of magic use in mundane tasks, and frequency of spell casters.  Let me describe a setting (my own) I consider low-to-mid magic then describe REHs Hour of The Dragon.

IMC (which is not standard D&D) a person able to use magic is pretty rare based on minimum ability requirements (which PCs can often meet), only 1 in a 1000 to 1,500 can be spell casters.  To give you an idea of what this means, this is about the frequency of medical doctors in the US.  So certainly they are highly skilled and paid people but not unheard of especially in the cities.  On the other hand, temples in even large villages (200-400 people) are more likely to be staffed by a lay brother instead of a spell wielder.  Those who attain levels high enough to make permanent magic items (besides potions, scrolls, etc.) are 1 in 100,000.  Magic items would be exceedingly rare IMC if people hadn't been making them for about 10,000 years.  On the frequency of magical items, IMC they are rare and considered a strategic resource (no open magic item market).  A well equipped nation might have a +1 sword per 100 soldiers.  More powerful magic items are reserved for leaders and very special units.  It is not a great comparison, but magic items might be viewed as a tank, nations can afford them, and lots of them, but the vast majority of people never could.  The common people will see them on parade days or, unfortuantely, when used against them.

On spell power, IMC there are few, if any, permanent effect spells.  Magic can really help society but often in only subtle/tactical ways.  The lower number of spell casters means they are unlikely to stop a plague (unless caught very early) but they can save a few select individuals.  In the economy, magic could be used to give a boost each day to construction, but again limited spell casters of sufficient level means this is an expedient for the wealthy and does not replace more mundane methods.  Divination magic might be the most influential, the mere ability to predict the weather (even with just the present day accuracy a few days in advance) could help avoid disasters, allow people to prepare for hurricanes, get crops in before a storm, avoid planting before a frost, etc.  Such a simple thing would have made a big difference to a medieval farmer for example, and a good example of why priests were first astronomers.  In warfare, low level spells have little advantage over arms in shear damage potential but can provide some tactical advantage on a small scale given their area of effect and duration.  Spells that get to the point of doing respectable damage to a structure are of sufficeint level that only 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 can cast them.  Again these people are of limited number.  People being what they are, kingdoms will want to stockpile as many scrolls as they can for war, still there will be a limited supply even if you got every mage in the kingdom writing scrolls full time (a risky approach since you might not want to alienate people with such a rare gift).

Adventures IMC, yes spell use is practiced by PCs in about every or every other encounter.  At low levels they do not encounter many spell casters casting against them, but they do encounter magic much, much more frequently than in the outside world.  After all, they are seeking out those places where it could be found.

So for relatively constant prevalence, common use by adventurers, but no blatant impact on the day-to-day lives of people and something most people could never practice, I'd rate this campaign as low to mid magic.

In REHs Hour of the Dragon, Conan is a deposed King (so name level?) he encounters no less than seven spell casters from his age (not counting the one incredibly powerful BBEG).  We have the witch who seems to have some mid-level druidic magic, the fallen priest of Mitra who seems mid to high level, the priest of Asura also mid-to-high level, and the four mages from Khaitan (IIRC) very high level.  Also mentioned are other magic wiedling priests of Asura and Mitra, let alone the ever present sorcerors of Stygia we hear about.  When magic is encounterd in REH it is often very, very powerful.  This setting is typically consider "low magic" but magic is far from infrequent from Conan's perspective, he's always encountering it; and further, the power of the magic is rarely "low".  Maybe people think of it as "low" because Conan doesn't use it and most people in his world don't.  It's rare but seems to exist in every major city and a whole kingdom, Stygia, is ruled by mages/priests.  Maybe it's because magic items are very rare, but when they do occur they are very powerful.  Finally, maybe it is because spell casting is more ritualistic and less suited to combat.

All in all a very long winded way of saying, a discussion of what is or is not "low" magic will go in circles unless (IMHO) one starts with a specific definition, whatever that may be.


----------



## Rothe (Jul 13, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ...
> If you want to believe that a game where each and every encounter is solved by the use of magic is a low magic campaign, then, well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  Conan is low magic because, while it still occurs in the stories, it does not occur in EVERY story, nor does it occur in EVERY EVENT in the story.
> ...




I don't think we are reading the same Conan stories, or at least the ones by REH.  A magical city, beast (often some ape-human abberation), item, caster, etc. is encounterd in every story by REH, other authors I cannot say.  In fact, this wierdness is often a core element of the story as you might expect for submission to Wierd Tales and other such pulps of the era.  That Conan doesn't solve a problem with magic, although sometimes he does use some magic item, is not surprising as he is a fighter/thief etc.

Hussar, I like your posts but on this point from my point of view you need to be more explicit in what you mean.  Is low magic when not every event uses magic?  What do you call an event?  Or is low magic when not every adventure/story uses magic?  What do you mean by magic use?  Is it just spell casting?  Your aguments so far have been not much more than I know it when I see it and saying "that's not it because of x."  Instead of nay saying; just come out and define what you mean, even if it is a list of things that exclude a setting from being low magic.  Also do you think there is a middle ground between low and high magic?

With a nod to the OP, D&D IMO has always been high magic.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2006)

Heh, I'll start with the easy one.  

There is certainly a middle ground between low and high magic.  I personally feel that stock DnD fills that middle ground.  It's actually specifically called out as such in the DMG when they talk about High vs Low Magic.  Sure, there's lots of goodies, but, you also don't have imp powered day planners, arcane computers and pyramids that twist time.  (If you read Pratchett, you'll see what I mean)

Perhaps a large part of my problem is I'm viewing a lot of this through a fairly long lens of memory.  The last time I read an REH Conan was more than a few years ago, so, take what I'm saying with a fair dose of salt, never mind that the Conan I read was L. Sprague de Camp's versions and not the originals.  

Yes, you're right, most of the stories involved some magic.  That's why it's fantasy.  Conan with no magic is Tarzan.    (Yes, that's a joke, don't call me on it.)  But, the magic in the stories was often not the focus.  The focus was on Conan kicking someone's posterior all over the pages.  In a few of the stories, he had a magic sword, possible another trinket or so, but that was about it.  Conan didn't solve the problems with magic.  Any magic item that was in the story was a plot device or a setting device that was quickly discarded after the story.

Let me rephrase that.  The magic in the story served the function of setting a certain tone, but was rarely central to the story.  While Thoth-Amon featured in a number of the stories, he was typically way in the background.  The majority of the action featured Conan against either human or beastial opponents.  Is an ape man magic?  Meh, that's iffy.  Fantastic yes, magic?  Not so much.

Compare Conan to Elric.  Elric is much higher magic.  Take it a step further and you get the Chronicles of Corum.  What's the primary difference?  

Essentially, Conan solves his problems with brain and brawn.  Elric solves his problems by feeding their souls to his demonic sword.  Corum solves his problems by summoning a horde of demons to feast on their souls.  

Sure, there is magic in the Conan stories.  It is fantasy.  It's low fantasy because the plot is not resolved through the use of magic (at least not often).  In high fantasy, the plot is resolved almost entirely by magic.  Toss the ring in the volcano and all your problems melt away.  

To me, that is why you can't really have a low magic campaign with core casters in the group.  Plots can be resolved by the liberal application of magic.  In low magic, if you want to find the killer, you have to track down clues.  In high magic, you ask the gods and they tell you.  Since there are so many spells with lengthy durations, the idea of limiting magical items to the party becomes almost laughable anyway.  Greater Magic Weapon and now the fighter has a magic sword.  Magic Vestment and now he has magic armor.  Bless weapon and now he's got an aligned magic sword and armor.  All this can be done by a seventh level party.  

To me, to claim that by making everyone else except the party low magic = a low magic campaign, seems very strange.  Actually, it seems very much like superhero comics to me.  The party has fantastic powers that they use to right wrongs and stop injustice.  It's up to the medieval version of the Justice League to save the day.

I prefer, and this is purely my preference, for the party to be a lot higher level before they can be viewed that way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

I'll see if I can drag out my _Encyclopedia of Fantasy_ this weekend, and quote the definitions given therein.


----------



## Rothe (Jul 13, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> Perhaps a large part of my problem is I'm viewing a lot of this through a fairly long lens of memory.  The last time I read an REH Conan was more than a few years ago, so, take what I'm saying with a fair dose of salt, never mind that the Conan I read was L. Sprague de Camp's versions and not the originals.
> 
> ...





Hussar, thanks for the response.  That makes sense to me when you describe Conan that way.  I actually agree that Tarzan=Conan without the magic.   It also provides a good place to find the mid-magic campaign.  I've an unfair advantage as I recently read the 3 volume re-release of REH Conan stories, good stuff.  

I still think of D&D as presented in modules and such as rather high magic, at least by mid-levels where you might need a magical weapon and magic to even resolve some encounters, i.e., magical weapon to hit.  From what I've seen D&D instead of toneing down spells as editions progressed, the system upped the magic items to make fighter types competative.  The inclusion of magic sword shops etc. clinces it for me.   Change the need for magic weapons to hit, magic to effect certain creatures, take out magic shops and I'd see D&D as mid-magic.  But maybe it is not knowing even further extremes such as you mention.  I'm famialiar with Elric but not the others.




> To me, that is why you can't really have a low magic campaign with core casters in the group.  Plots can be resolved by the liberal application of magic.  In low magic, if you want to find the killer, you have to track down clues.  In high magic, you ask the gods and they tell you.  Since there are so many spells with lengthy durations, the idea of limiting magical items to the party becomes almost laughable anyway.  Greater Magic Weapon and now the fighter has a magic sword.  Magic Vestment and now he has magic armor.  Bless weapon and now he's got an aligned magic sword and armor.  All this can be done by a seventh level party.
> 
> To me, to claim that by making everyone else except the party low magic = a low magic campaign, seems very strange.  Actually, it seems very much like superhero comics to me.  The party has fantastic powers that they use to right wrongs and stop injustice.  It's up to the medieval version of the Justice League to save the day.
> 
> I prefer, and this is purely my preference, for the party to be a lot higher level before they can be viewed that way.




On the last point I whole heartedly agree and is how I structure my campaigns, but also I'm not using D&D RAW by any stretch (e.g., you can hurt stone golems IMC without a magical weapon, even a 10th level fighter can die by one good sword blow).  So far all encounters IMC have been resolved by brains and brawn, magic just provides a tactical expedient to facilitate brains.



> In low magic, if you want to find the killer, you have to track down clues.  In high magic, you ask the gods and they tell you.




In mid-magic I'd say if you are high enough level you can use magic to aid you in getting clues but it is no susbtitute for leg work and leg work works just as well.  In addition, magic would not be all powerful, non-magical counter measures are available to thwart divinations, or make them cost prohibitive.

On the "low" magic world but magic wielding PCs, your point about spells being in effect permanent items is a good one, part of my reason to include not just spell frequency but also spell power in the evaluation of what we mean.  I'm not up on current ed. D&D spells, but from what I know of older editions your on point.  I still think it is possible to have a "low" magic world and magic wielding PCs, or at least have it on the low side of mid-magic.  It's not that the PCs have anything extra than the rest of the setting, it's just that only people with such high training (be it in magic, weapons, sneaking etc.) are going to have much chance of surviving yoour typical adventure.  Under D&D they may well be "superheros" given game mechanics but under other approaches with different spells it's not a given.  But that gets a bit off topic.  In the end I'd have to agree that for a D&D campiagn you won't get low magic world with core caster PCs that doesn't turn the PCs into "superheros."

Just to compare, the Conan stories are told in a low magic way and brains & brawn solutions work, but some of the NPCs are definitively using magic to resolve problems.  Is this a case of low magic PCs and a mid magic world?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

Rothe said:
			
		

> Hussar, thanks for the response.  That makes sense to me when you describe Conan that way.  I actually agree that Tarzan=Conan without the magic.   It also provides a good place to find the mid-magic campaign.  I've an unfair advantage as I recently read the 3 volume re-release of REH Conan stories, good stuff.




By that reasoning, though, Low Magic = No Magic.  War and Peace, apparently, would then be the quintessential Low Magic setting.     Except, of course, that there is occasionally "magic" in Tarzan (example:  the witch doctor who makes Tarzan immortal).  

Again, I'll wait for that third party (Encyclopedia of Fantasy) opinion.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 13, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> * 1/2 XP according to CR.
> * No magic shops.
> * Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world.




Okay I have to ask. How is this creating a low magic world? 

I could follow this procedure and end up with a much _higher_ magic world than default D&D! Half XP means nothing as to magic aqusition. In fact, if one halves the XP without halving the magic attained, then you'll end up with PCs with double the wealth of normal! "Place monsters, NPCs, and treasures in accordance with your world," is great and all, but that doesn't mean "low" and it doesn't even mean "different" it just means the DM can do whatever he wants.

And, again, no magic shops doesn't decrease the magic of PCs. You can easily run a monty haul campaign with magic everywhere and not have a magic shop in sight. Lots of people did that back in 1E. It doesn't say anything about being a low magic setting.

This is all fine advice and all, and I won't slight you for that. Half XP is something I've had Players ask for. Magic shops are going to be a setting dependant determination. Treasure aquisition handled by the DM instead of rolling on tables is something I've done for years and years. But, I run a high magic campaign in Planescape, so I don't see how any of this relates to a low magic campaign.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

_* Place monsters, NPCs, and *treasures* in accordance with your world._


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 13, 2006)

And I totally agree with that and do it. Treasure placement in my world is in accordance with my world. But, I also run a high magic campaign, Planescape. "In accordance with your world" is not equivalent to "not much."

Like I said, its fine advice for DMs looking to run a campaign. I don't see how its advice on how to run a low-magic campaign, though. I far prefer my half caster levels, give out less magic items, and ignore CR method of advising people how to run a low magic campaign.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but running a low magic D&D game is a bit more complicated than "give out less magical items."

EDIT: I was in a game that went up to 10th level. I played a Fighter alongside a Druid. I had to my name at level 10 a ring of protection +1 and a heavy mace +1. The druids summons were so much more powerful than me that enemies the DM threw at us were horribly deadly to me, but the druid's summoned creatures could kill them in 2-3 rounds easy.

Combat wasn't fun. The DM has to make more allowances, specifically, those mentioned work.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> And I totally agree with that and do it. Treasure placement in my world is in accordance with my world. But, I also run a high magic campaign, Planescape. "In accordance with your world" is not equivalent to "not much."




It is if your goal is to run a low-magic world.  Obviously.  Although, of course, what you call "low magic" might not be what I call "low magic" or Hussar calls "low magic".    

And, yes, you can certainly do more if you want, but that's all that's needed.

(Your example, to my way of thinking, is Very Very Low Magic, and such a setting should also have restricted spell lists, IMHO.  YMMV.)


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 13, 2006)

Well, I agree that there's a difference between low/high magic worlds, and low/high magic parties.

I actually sorta hate the whole "low/high" thing because it doesn't capture the essence of what I think of as the problem. Low/high is fuzzy. And, moreover, we're talking about something that's really a continuum. You can end up anywhere on the continuum, and different people would disagree about whether it was low, high, or the nebulous "mid" magic. To clarify, I'd like to quote from something Rich Baker wrote a while back. The 2e supplement _Player's Option: Spells and Magic_ said that magic in the game essentially functioned on three criteria: Scarcity, Power and Mystery. To whit:

Scarcity: How common is magic? Can anyone become a spellcaster or is it a "gift" that only a few people have?

Power: What's the most magic can accomplish? How powerful is it?

Mystery: What do people know about magic?

Rich proposed that a DM should rate these criteria on a 1-10 scale as he sees fit, and then determine, for his campaign, whether the same ratings apply to spellcasters and items, arcane and divine, and so forth.

I think D&D 3e has written more common magic and less mysterious magic into its rules. Maybe not compared to earlier editions (that's been debated to death) but there's defintely a baseline assumption on these three criteria written into the 3e rules. It's not my impression that earlier editions carried the same assumptions. Maybe their modules did: that's, to me, one of the points of a setting. However, from my impression, the Core Rulebooks themselves were surprisingly neutral on the subject.

From my impression, 3e would rate those as follows:

Scarcity (1 being rare and 10 being common): 7-10
Power (1 being weak, and 10 being ultimate): 7-9
Mystery (1 - magic is technology, 10 = Cthulu): 1-3

I can conceive of magic-users being more powerful than they are in D&D, but not by much. They're definitely on the high-end of the power spectrum. Certainly at the higher levels. I can't think of many things beyond the ken of Epic Level magic. But even a moderate level caster has spells that completely eliminate the need for certain skills.

Scarcity is an issue. Magic is very common in D&D. I'd put _Eberron_ at about 9, with FR falling somewhat below that (but not much). Giving credit to the design team, _Eberron_ does vary the "scarcity" rating somewhat by making low-level magic common (say 9) and higher-level effects less common (maybe not even 5...).

Mystery is another area that's taken a beating. Most D&D settings now have stripped the mystery out of magic. Everyone knows how it works. The sense of wonder that Harry Potter gets when he walks into a magic tent is being ruthlessly removed from most D&D settings. "These people are used to this - they'd expect it." The problem is that ubiquitous, non-mysterious magic basically means "magic is everywhere" and the residents of the word don't think twice about it. They're no more impressed by a flying wizard than we are by a helicopter or a dishwasher. 

I actually think power is the least worrisome of these. Because, as many people point out, that can be adjusted by limiting the number of high-level casters in your campaign. Well, that and limiting the degree to which spells make skills and other mundane activities worthless. Heck, as I mentioned above, _Eberron_ even does the former (though not the latter). The ubiquitous nature of magic and lack of mystery associated with it are the things that I find frustratingly "written into" D&D.

Moreover, in 3e, items basically hit the same marks as spellcasters, and arcane and divine magic score about the same as well. It would be nice if it were easier to vary the criteria somewhat.

My two cents.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 13, 2006)

Wow.  Excellent post.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 13, 2006)

If that was to me, I can't take much credit. That particular chapter of that book was one of the best things I've ever read about world-building with magic. It's stuck with me.

I'd love to see Rich write something similar now, but even though he worked on _Complete Arcane_, he didn't (sadly) cover this again. I had been hoping he would revisit and expand his earlier work with 3e in mind.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 13, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It is if your goal is to run a low-magic world.  Obviously.  Although, of course, what you call "low magic" might not be what I call "low magic" or Hussar calls "low magic".




I think the difference might be that you're assuming a level of competance in theoretical DM using the "low magic" guidelines provided, and I'm not.  But, then, it took us three years to figure out how to run a low magic D&D campaign without breaking everything, so I suppose I can't make claims to that competance myself.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think the difference might be that you're assuming a level of competance in theoretical DM using the "low magic" guidelines provided, and I'm not. But, then, it took us three years to figure out how to run a low magic D&D campaign without breaking everything, so I suppose I can't make claims to that competance myself.




Heh, I honestly don't trust my competence level that far and I KNOW I don't have the patience for it.    I know it can be done.  I'm pretty sure it can be done with DnD rules, but, I think it take a lot more work than I want to put into it. 

JohnSnow, I like what you said.  I agree mostly.  Although, the benchmarks you put are perhaps off, IMO.  I would place it more thusly:

Scarcity (1 being rare and 10 being common): 4-6
Power (1 being weak, and 10 being ultimate): 7-9
Mystery (1 - magic is technology, 10 = Cthulu): 1-3

When you follow the demographics rules, magic gets a WHOLE lot less common.  There was a reason I had the king lighting the city.  The vast majority of the people couldn't possibly afford 150 gp for a single light.  When you take the demographics into account, DnD becomes a lot less magic.

I would point to Cauldron from the Shackled City AP.  A well laid out city, lots of clerics and whatnot, but, certainly not highly magic-common.  Not rare - certainly not, but not terribly common either.

One of the ironic things about this is, by RC's definition, I run a pretty low magic campaign.  No magic shops, no core casters (not my choice, the player's chose not to have one), about 50-75% wealth and no custom magic items.  And, honestly, not a really large difference in how the game plays out.  Sure, they need to rest more often, but, that's about it.

But, yes, low to high magic is a spectrum.  There's no cut off at any given point.  It's easier to see the extremes because there's a whole lot in the middle.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jul 14, 2006)

high and low magic are iffy and hard to quantify. and in my opinion not really the big problem. The problem to me is flashy magic and common magic. LIke JohnSnow said, the mystery of magic is key to its magical feel. 

   I saw a great idea recently for less flashy magic. Basically eliminate the schools of conjuration, evocation, most necromancy and transmutation. That leaves you with magic that protects from other magical spells or monsters, magic that messes with peoples minds and magic that reveals secrets. Like the typical mythological magic we all grew up with. For instance name one story where Merlin throws a fireball to help out the knights of the round table. Wizards were people who screwed with your mind and knew things no mortal could know, not living artillery platforms. 

    Another idea was to ditch full casters and make bard the base arcane caster and a similar class the base divine caster. Which also solves alot of the super magic issues. 

   So what do folks think about those?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2006)

Hrm... this intrigues me.  I know that I'm certainly tired of yet another blaster mage lobbing endless fireballs.

In all honesty, I could see keeping conjuration on the table.  Yes, it's flashier than the other effects, but, it's also somewhat self limiting.  Most of the conjured creatures are not overwhelmingly powerful and the one round casting time for summoning spells means that they are less likely to take over fights.

But I'm just biased 'cos I actually like summoners.    Perhaps use the variant in the DMG where the summoner calls in the same creature(s) all the time.  Sure, it's Pokemon, but, it's also Arabian Nights as well.  Besides, where would wizards be without ugly circles on the floor?


----------



## boredgremlin (Jul 14, 2006)

older summoning spells i can see keeping. But each new splat book seems to take damaging spells that should be evocation and shunting them into conjuration. If you kept just the core conjuration spells i can see keeping them though. I do like the image of wizards summoning magical creatures to serve... it just seems like part of the wizards image. So i agree with you on that after rethinking it.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2006)

Yeah, isn't it all the "orb" spells that are conjuration?  Meh.  Sorry, you bring in a ball of energy to hurt people with, that's evocation.  Silly rule.  If you bring in an fiendish troll to hurt people with, that's conjuration.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 14, 2006)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> high and low magic are iffy and hard to quantify. and in my opinion not really the big problem. The problem to me is flashy magic and common magic. LIke JohnSnow said, the mystery of magic is key to its magical feel.
> 
> I saw a great idea recently for less flashy magic. Basically eliminate the schools of conjuration, evocation, most necromancy and transmutation. That leaves you with magic that protects from other magical spells or monsters, magic that messes with peoples minds and magic that reveals secrets. Like the typical mythological magic we all grew up with. For instance name one story where Merlin throws a fireball to help out the knights of the round table. Wizards were people who screwed with your mind and knew things no mortal could know, not living artillery platforms.
> 
> ...



 I think that's reasonable if you're going for the things you mentioned. 

For me, personally, it would be a pretty lousy idea. When playing D&D, I don't want (most) magic to be mysterious and I'm not looking to mimic magic from the mythology I grew up with. I was reading The Mahabharata at 4 and have spent the last 25+ years reading heavily into just about every major mythological tradition worldwide, but I don't think most of them have a take on magic that maps well onto D&D, but then I think most literary fantasy doesn't map well onto D&D either. And I've never wanted it to. So, as a matter of personal taste, it wouldn't do it, but for the ends you want, that's a reasonable start. I think working through the entire PHB list of spells and creating individual spell lists of your own, would be an even better idea.


----------

