Defining its own Mythology

[Rechan]

D&D used to be fairly encyclopedic and it's not anymore; we should be seeing a convenient, generous catalog of core races not just a handful. D&D has been around for over thirty years and still the PHB contains only a handful of races. Why? Supplements make money.

And if it was a huge plethora of 20 races, the book would be oh, 400 pages. Because "Why stop with 20 races, why not put 20 classes in too?" and so on.

Seriously, what do you expect? How many races did the 1e PHb have? The 2e one? Where is this encyclopedic quality coming from, because I've never seen tri-keen and gith and drow in any PHB. So D&D has never been fairly encyclopedic; it's not new.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

Okay. High level campaign, low magic world, no divine or arcane magic allowed. Go!

Unless you just take the system into the back and beat it with a club until it's a bloody mess, and then try to bandage it up, you're not going to do that. This is why Iron Heroes had to build everything from the ground up, using the d20 framework.

Expecting a DM to do that just to get what he wants out of his game, and if he doesn't, he lacks skill? That's just offensive.

No problem. Island continent of giants, land dragons, and beasts set in a dark age amongst the ruins of a once-high-age fallen dwarven kingdom over taken by great forests and jungle; orcish invaders landing from the sea on great wooden ships; heavy on mithral, adamantite and masterwork weapons to start with some discovery of past-age dwarven magic weapons and armor. Here's a veritable lost world filled with mystery, adventure and lots of combat, maybe even some sailing and ship burning. Players allowed to play dwarven barbarians, fighters, monks, rogues, scouts, swashbucklers, dragon shamans, warlocks (just to name a few); heavy on feats and skills. Done? What do I win?

Okay, okay I'll have to draw some maps and type up a few things but that stuff is part of the FUN (to me, not to all). Here's where Mallus is also correct: need player buy in.

Plenty of game masters write their own game worlds. I've not used a published game world as a matter of fact. So, I have done that complete with house rules. Um, I also mentioned time. So take offense if it feels right, but you're stretching my intent.

 

[PeterWeller]

D&D used to be fairly encyclopedic and it's not anymore; we should be seeing a convenient, generous catalog of core races not just a handful. D&D has been around for over thirty years and still the PHB contains only a handful of races. Why? Supplements make money.

If you stop looking at just the number of classes and races and instead look at the range of options they present, the game looks like it will be even more encyclopedic than earlier editions.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

And if it was a huge plethora of 20 races, the book would be oh, 400 pages. Because "Why stop with 20 races, why not put 20 classes in too?" and so on.

Seriously, what do you expect? How many races did the 1e PHb have? The 2e one? Where is this encyclopedic quality coming from, because I've never seen tri-keen and gith and drow in any PHB. So D&D has never been fairly encyclopedic; it's not new.

Great idea! Let's add instead of cutting to the bone with each new addition! Or, hey, how about we put spells in an actual spell book instead of in the PHB with every single edition? Plenty of different ways to arrange text space and plenty of light and heavy books on the market. Every new supplement adds to the referential substance of the game, encylopedias come in seperate volumes too. I didn't know book weight was a big issue.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

If you stop looking at just the number of classes and races and instead look at the range of options they present, the game looks like it will be even more encyclopedic than earlier editions.

I'm sure it will because profit margins are riding on it.

 

[Rechan]

Plenty of game masters write their own game worlds. I've not used a published game world as a matter of fact. So, I have done that complete with house rules. Um, I also mentioned time. So take offense if it feels right, but you're stretching my intent.

No, I said low magic world. As in, 1 magic item per character. No spellcasters in the party. Seriously, Eberron has people crapping magical items - everbright lanterns are as plentiful as lightbulbs. Not quite "Middle Earth low magic".

D&D doesn't do low magic. Because if you don't have a +x weapon and a +x stat item and a +x (insert) by y level, you're going to get owned. Those things are assumed to be had by the system. And when you take them out, the thing starts to shudder under its own weight.

 

[Rechan]

Great idea! Let's add instead of cutting to the bone with each new addition! Or, hey, how about we put spells in an actual spell book instead of in the PHB with every single edition? Plenty of different ways to arrange text space and plenty of light and heavy books on the market. Every new supplement adds to the referential substance of the game, encylopedias come in seperate volumes too. I didn't know book weight was a big issue.

Hyperbole. The PHB has everything you need to run a character: races, classes, spells. They're not taking anything out of there.

Point to me one thing that is going to be absent from the 4e PHB that was there in the 2e PHB (barring gnomes).

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, I said low magic world. As in, 1 magic item per character. No spellcasters in the party.

And why can't you do that?

"OK, guys, we're playing in a low-magic world. No PC spellcasters." Done.

As the DM, I make sure that I use lower CR foes than I would for characters following the WPL guidelines, and give normal XP on the basis of CR. As the characters grow in levels, they can fight tougher things, but eventually they "top out" because of the Lvl vs. CR XP guidelines, stopping them from becoming superhuman (i.e., high magic).

Easiest thing in the world to accomplish.

RC

 

[Rechan]

And why can't you do that?

Because most of the higher level heavy lifting comes from spellcasters?

If you don't have spellcasters, what do you do about poison damage? Ability loss? Negative levels? Good luck fighting anything with DR, which is most of your mid-high level opponents. Trolls are going to spank you.

Or hell, healing. Running a game without a cleric is a pain in the ass. I can't imagine running a game without a wand of cure light or potions.

"Well, we fought the monster this morning. Let's go rest a week so that we can heal all of our hit points back."

And if your response is "Well I'll just have to work around that", then congratulations - that's my point. It's a lot of work to do with D&D. Meanwhile, you could go to another system that is built to handle that. Tada, no needing to force the rectangular peg into the square hole.

Enough people have tried it, and it has been a steady complaint about 3e that low magic is hellishly hard to do.

If you want, I can start a thread on the General board and ask those who've tried it, and we'll see what others have experienced?

 

[PeterWeller]

And why can't you do that?

"OK, guys, we're playing in a low-magic world. No PC spellcasters." Done.

As the DM, I make sure that I use lower CR foes than I would for characters following the WPL guidelines, and give normal XP on the basis of CR. As the characters grow in levels, they can fight tougher things, but eventually they "top out" because of the Lvl vs. CR XP guidelines, stopping them from becoming superhuman (i.e., high magic).

Easiest thing in the world to accomplish.

RC

But in doing that, you have to cut out the upper levels of the Monster Manual, as well as a good number of critters in the middle levels. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a consequence of houseruling in that manner.