D&D General D&D, magic, and the mundane medieval

[haakon1]

Hârn is truly astonishing and exceptionally well-made. The only things I've never truly been able to "grok" yet are its religion and magic systems.
But in terms of sheer medievalism, really nothing comes close to Hârn.

I used one Harn adventure in this D&D 3.5e campaign so far. “Trobridge Inn“ was dual stat‘d in Harn and D&D 3e rules. But it‘s mostly about the role playing, not combat.

I set Trobridge as a village 12 miles from the Keep on the Borderlands. For the Keep, I used a combination of D&D 2e‘s Return to the Keep on the Borderlands (definitely in Greyhawk) and Goodman Games’ Original Adventures Reincarnated “Into the Borderlands” (reprint Basic D&D from 1978 + converted and newly expanded 5e materials). Lots of fun!

For what it’s worth, converting from almost every other edition and system (Basic, AD&D, 2e, 3e, PF1, 5e, Harn, ICE) to 3.5e works pretty well for me, at least at low levels, but yeah, I haven’t tried to convert or understand Harn magic.

 

[Oofta]

It’s not ambiguous. It means having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully.
A competent basketball player is able to contribute to the success of the team rather than being a hindrance.

Can we please not nitpick wording, though? It is absolutely the least interesting avenue of discussion, and I have never seen it add any value whatsoever to a discussion.

But there's a big difference between playing basketball and truly understanding quantum physics. A 5 year old can play basketball but will never understand quantum physics. Very few people (even trained scientists) really understand it. Heck, our brains evolved to figure out how to catch our next meal while avoiding being something else's next meal so there's no reason to believe we have the capability of truly understanding quantum physics. The best we can do is develop mathematical models that appear to work. The majority of people probably could not understand the models even if they had the training.

We all have limits, I see no reason to believe that anyone at all could grasp the concepts of manipulating reality through magic. Is it 1 in 10, 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000? Depends on your world and your assumptions.

As far as magic items, the basic assumption has always been that once a magical item is created it's very difficult to destroy. Enchanted swords do not rust so that sword created 500 years ago that was lost at sea could show up and be perfectly fine after you scrape the barnacles off.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But there's a big difference between playing basketball and truly understanding quantum physics. A 5 year old can play basketball but will never understand quantum physics. Very few people (even trained scientists) really understand it. Heck, our brains evolved to figure out how to catch our next meal while avoiding being something else's next meal so there's no reason to believe we have the capability of truly understanding quantum physics. The best we can do is develop mathematical models that appear to work. The majority of people probably could not understand the models even if they had the training.

THen quantum physics is a bad example, being the most advanced possible version of a thing. That's like insisting that all spellcasting is comparable to playing Hockey at the level of Wayne Gretsky. No 5 year old will ever do that, no matter how far into the future the human race persists, but they can play hockey.

Every person over the age of 10 with no cognitive disability can learn to understand fundamental physics, even how to apply them in practical scenarios.

If learning to cast any spells at all in an arcane framework requires the sort of mind that can grok quantum physics and begin to advance it's study, then the disconnect between mid to high level arcane spellcasters, hell even a 3rd level full caster, and every other mortal being that exists is so great that the game is unplayably absurd. Nothing in the world of dnd can then be understood meaningfully, and no discussion of it's particulars can ever have any validity of any kind.

If, instead, we assume that only the highest reaches of arcane understanding are equivelent to the highest reaches of scientific understanding, the game makes enough sense to do something with. One equals one, and added to itself becomes two, and thus we can discuss particulars and understand the fictional world to some meaningful degree.

We all have limits, I see no reason to believe that anyone at all could grasp the concepts of manipulating reality through magic. Is it 1 in 10, 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000? Depends on your world and your assumptions.

We know absolutely that in a dnd world using the rules of 5e dnd, there is arcane magic below the threshold of what you keep insisting as the floor of understanding to be able to do arcane magic. Half the ways in which arcane magic can be gained become complete nonsense, otherwise.

It's a skill. Like all skills with real depth of application, there is a level past which the amateur simply cannot reach, but the fundamentals are a matter of drive and practice and access to information.

As far as magic items, the basic assumption has always been that once a magical item is created it's very difficult to destroy. Enchanted swords do not rust so that sword created 500 years ago that was lost at sea could show up and be perfectly fine after you scrape the barnacles off.

Okay? What's your point?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But there's a big difference between playing basketball and truly understanding quantum physics. A 5 year old can play basketball but will never understand quantum physics.

again, that is time thing. any 5 year old can LEARN to understand quantum physics... its just an advanced skill and one they don't yet have the foundation for.
You can't line up 10 5 year olds and pick out "That one is smart enough to learn physics"

now some kids may have a knack for it, or may be faster at picking it up, but given time any of the 10 can be taught it.

Very few people (even trained scientists) really understand it.

but not because they can't be taught, but because it is a niche of a niche of science and those people didn't choose that field.

It's like argueing "yeah look at that group of 100 magic the gathering players, and 60 yugioh players... they don't understand how to play spellfire" it's not a limit that they can't learn spell fire, it's just a card game they don't know and have not put any time into.

Heck, our brains evolved to figure out how to catch our next meal while avoiding being something else's next meal so there's no reason to believe we have the capability of truly understanding quantum physics. The best we can do is develop mathematical models that appear to work. The majority of people probably could not understand the models even if they had the training.

physics isn't magic. anyone given the education would understand it... the education isn't quick or easy but anyone can get it (the real problem is cost/benfit)

We all have limits, I see no reason to believe that anyone at all could grasp the concepts of manipulating reality through magic. Is it 1 in 10, 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000? Depends on your world and your assumptions.

again magic isn't real, we can just put a spark or a weave or any other magic mombo words... but in the real world science and math isn't magic.



when growing up I was the cook. Both of my grandmothers tried to teach me and my sister, and I exceled and she... didn't. We joked for 20 years she could burn water. She told her first husband she doesn't cook and he didn't know why until he insited she trie...once.

when my sister became a single mom I helped out a lot. I made dinners for the kids and her a bunch... but you know what. That kid that could boil water and mess up, that woman that made her first husband almost puke... she had to learn to cook for her kids. It wasn't easy but today she cooks meals all the time (maybe not the best meals sometimes) but it wasn't "she can't ever learn to cook" it was "It was hard and took more effrt for her to learn to cook"

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Whether you find it useful or not, that's still the default position of the game. As DM you can either go with it or ignore it, but it is what it is.

Not really. It's a suggested bit of advice in the manual for building worlds to use as a state to work from. It's the basic world, upon which DMs are expected to add if they wish. The actual rules of the game directly contradict it by being very free with magic, and by providing rules for the crafting of magic items.

They don't have to be common. Even if there are only 100(1 in a million or less) on the entire planet at any given time, after 20000 years that's a lot of spell books and scrolls.

Spell books aren't sturdy, first of all. Secondly, a person cannot just find an ancient master's spellbook (miraculously in a language they understand) and go from not knowing what an integer is to understanding calculus. Even Da Vinci, Newton, Galileo, all learned the fundamentals from teachers and from books made for the purpose of instruction. Third, if "person who can learn to cast literally any arcane spells at all" is as rare as you insist, then the few people who can are going to hoard their tomes against rivals, and people who don't want Mage-Emperors are going to burn the libraries of dead mages to prevent some young bastard from finding it and becoming the next best thing to a god.

Nothing cheesy about it. PCs can choose to be wizards/sorcerers or learn it later + wizards are rare = PCs all just happen to be part of the rare bunch. You don't have to run it that way for your game. I'm just pointing out the defaults.

It's exceptionally cheesy. It's cheesier than He-Man.

And please, if you are going to insist that you're just pointing out the defaults, at least provide quotations with page numbers, or screencaps, or something else people can use to fact check you without having to dig through a book you insist says exactly what you claim.

 

[Oofta]

Physical skills such as hockey, basketball, underwater basket weaving are things that just about anyone can accomplish, even if they can not do them well. There are some mental tasks that only a subset of the population can accomplish. I don't think that's a radical concept, nor is it an insult to anyone to accept that we al have limitations that no amount of effort or training can overcome.

Do what makes sense in your campaign, in my campaign world only some people can become wizards.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Physical skills such as hockey, basketball, underwater basket weaving are things that just about anyone can accomplish, even if they can not do them well. There are some mental tasks that only a subset of the population can accomplish. I don't think that's a radical concept, nor is it an insult to anyone to accept that we al have limitations that no amount of effort or training can overcome.

it just isn't true. it's education level not natural born ability. IF you had spent 10 years pushing for XXXX career you could do it, the fact that it would be hard becuse that skill set doesn't come easy might be why you didn't push for it, but that doesn't make some skills magic inborn ability,

I guarantee you some of the people who would have been the best (insert mental field here) didn't get to be that because they didn't have access to the education. I also guarantee you that some of the mediocre but able to do it (insert mental field here) pushed to be educated and put everything into it.

being 'born smart enough' is eugentics.

 

[Umbran]

again, that is time thing. any 5 year old can LEARN to understand quantum physics...

With respect... maybe, if you are not an expert in a thing, you need to do a bit more than just assert that everyone can do that thing. Maybe your assertion needs some evidentiary support.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

With respect... maybe, if you are not an expert in a thing, you need to do a bit more than just assert that everyone can do that thing. Maybe your assertion needs some evidentiary support.

okay, why is my assertion of education and drive being able to over come knack and things coming easy, but the original put forward assertion "You have to be born able to be a physics" doesn't?

I will again put forward the chemical engineer that I know that was pushed into that and had to work really hard and can do it... becuase there parents wanted them to go to college instead of the trade school that came easy

I will again put forward that cooking came easy to me but my sister had to work at it.

 

[pemerton]

We certainly can through analogy. The acceptance of handwashing prior to procedures, including delivery. Development of medications, industrial applications, &c. Reading alchemical papyri and texts from the clerical necromantic underground and seeing that a lot of magic was bargaining. You accumulate data, see the patterns, and extrapolate.

Which patterns? The ones that tell us that industrial society will look like the US? The ones that tell us it will look like Japan? Like Norway? China? Nigeria?

There are brilliant scholars who devote their lives to accumulating data and trying to see patterns. And they struggle with even simple extrapolations (I'd rank Weber perhaps the highest, but he saw fossil fuel depletion, rather than climate change, as imposing the limit on industrial economies).