Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[SKyOdin]

@SKyOdin

If you choose to limit the number of adventurers to your PCs plus some foes, that's perfectly reasonable but that's hardly how most people are likely to see it. This is what I mean about setting a common baseline

So, your view is consistent, reasonable and useful but it does seem a bit of a stretch to tell me I'm wrong because of this previously (to my knowledge) unstated way you handle it in your settings.

Regarding using earth magic/alchemy as an analogue for a magic world, I think the problem there is that earth magic/alchemy is either entirely powerless (my personal view) or of very limited, measurable power (allowing for other view points on this). D&D class magic is so much more patently powerful I don't see how you can use it as an example. I'd pick instead access to medieval universities or ancient world engineers; rare but not unheard of it.

I'm up for another thread but, if I may suggest, please take a stab at some ground rules to the discussion. Someone can always start another thread if they don't care for the ones you pick

I'll take a stab at my own thread regarding a premise similars to yours which I described as a "distortion bubble". I think it does have it's place.

I was talking about access to medieval universities. I could cite comparisons to ancient/medieval Chinese education too, since it followed the same patterns: only the wealthy elite had access to any kind of advanced education, and only a fraction of them succeeded at it.

Anyways, once again I reiterate that my argument that has never been that it is wrong for people to create a setting with an advanced magic-industrial revolution or a setting full of high-level characters. I have no problem if you want to create a setting where every street-corner has a ten-thousand year old everburning lantern on it, or a setting where war is fought between small, elite armies of 15th level magic wielding ninjas (I am a Naruto fan, after all). I am just arguing against the idea that it is impossible for a DM to adjust things to make these outcomes impossible. I am also arguing against the idea that these outcomes are an inevitability of the D&D rules system or that such settings are a natural progression of fantasy itself. My main point is that if you want to avoid it, you can do so quite easily.

 

[Haltherrion]

The use of the term permanent is a little open to discussion. For the most part, any given D&D campaign only covers a finite period of time, usually a few decades at the outside limit. The duration of 20 years, a hundred years, and forever are effectively the same thing as far the rules are concerned in a practical sense. It wouldn't disrupt the rules or a campaign to say that these torches do run out after a certain length of time. There is also the chance of magical dispelling or physical destruction to take into consideration. So, I am inclined to think that continual flame torches are lost, destroyed, or just run out at around the same rate they are created in the first place.

A sensible approach and one I often use myself but it isn't what the standard D&D rules say and thus, not exactly fair or appropriate to use in a discussion if the other person is appealing to standard D&D rules.

This whole thread is sorely in need of an agreed reference or baseline

 

[Hussar]

The use of the term permanent is a little open to discussion. For the most part, any given D&D campaign only covers a finite period of time, usually a few decades at the outside limit. The duration of 20 years, a hundred years, and forever are effectively the same thing as far the rules are concerned in a practical sense. It wouldn't disrupt the rules or a campaign to say that these torches do run out after a certain length of time. There is also the chance of magical dispelling or physical destruction to take into consideration. So, I am inclined to think that continual flame torches are lost, destroyed, or just run out at around the same rate they are created in the first place.

Permanent is open to discussion? How? There is no definition of permanent that isn't, well, forever. That's what permanent means. Now, you can start changing the definitions, but, that's house rule territory and then all gloves are off.

Granted dispelling is an issue. Although, it seems a bit disingenious to, on one hand, talk about how incredibly rare a 2nd level cleric spell is, while positing that there are enough casters capable of casting 3rd level spells deliberately trying to destroy the continual flames.

Same goes with your demographics. At least in 3e, this is very counter to how the demographics are presented in baseline 3e D&D. Earlier D&D didn't spell it out quite so well, but, numerous towns and whatnot are detailed in supplements and modules that show a fairly large number of higher level NPC's. Certainly in greater numbers than what you are talking about.

Again, there's nothing wrong with stating that this is true in your campaign, that's fine. But, when talking about baseline assumptions, we can't really use your or my campaign.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I wanted to read the entire thread because this is a topic I really like to think about, but there was just too much information.

As far as I'm concerned the problem with guns is they generally lack the right style as far as I'm concerned: point, shoot, maybe dakka. They tend to seem more set pieces of the scene than parts of the character. (I do have similar problems with crossbows, bows, and ranged magic that's point finger --> shoot.) This doesn't make want to ban them from the setting itself, just me wanting to make the mechanics such that they stay in the roll of set-piece. If it's not possible to relegate them to set-pieces then yes, I will ban them in favor of encouraging muscle-powered weapons.

 

[SKyOdin]

Permanent is open to discussion? How? There is no definition of permanent that isn't, well, forever. That's what permanent means. Now, you can start changing the definitions, but, that's house rule territory and then all gloves are off.

Granted dispelling is an issue. Although, it seems a bit disingenious to, on one hand, talk about how incredibly rare a 2nd level cleric spell is, while positing that there are enough casters capable of casting 3rd level spells deliberately trying to destroy the continual flames.

Same goes with your demographics. At least in 3e, this is very counter to how the demographics are presented in baseline 3e D&D. Earlier D&D didn't spell it out quite so well, but, numerous towns and whatnot are detailed in supplements and modules that show a fairly large number of higher level NPC's. Certainly in greater numbers than what you are talking about.

Again, there's nothing wrong with stating that this is true in your campaign, that's fine. But, when talking about baseline assumptions, we can't really use your or my campaign.

Hussar, look, I have never been talking about baseline D&D assumptions and how they affect everyones campaigns. I have never been saying that you can't have a setting full of continual light spells if you really want to. I have just been saying that if someone doesn't want those things in their setting, it is quite easy to have it be the case.

For the most part, I reject the idea that the D&D ruleset represents any kind of laws of physics or strict implied setting. They are nothing more than rules for running a game, which are very distinct from rules governing a setting. Permanent is a game rule, not a setting rule. What is permanent in the context of a game might not be permanent in the context of a setting. While game rules are roughly based on notions of how the laws of physics work in a setting, they also are too lacking and imprecise to themselves function as the rules that govern a world.

It is impossible to create an internally consistent world given the rules of D&D and nothing else. You need to add something else in order to create an actual believable world. That added 'something else' is very malleable and open to interpretation.

For one thing, D&D does not have a coherent magic system. It just has a list of effects that a magic system can produce. At no point does any D&D book explain the hows and whys of magic's inner workings. As such, magic is completely open to interpretation if someone wants to create actual setting rules for it. I could list out a half dozen different metaphysical systems that could be used whenever a wizard casts a fireball spell, each of which has different setting implications.

If you look at a fire elemental, there is all kinds of room for different interpretations on what a fire elemental actually is. The D&D rules simply leave it that it is a semi-intelligent mass of fire from an inner plane or the Elemental Chaos. That tells us nothing about how it might be applied to the situations people try to apply it to. Some people interpret it to be a tame-able source of free, infinite energy. However, that interpretation has no direct basis in the D&D rules. It is simply one possible expression of the rules.

As such, I don't think there is one rule in the D&D books that isn't heavily open to being reflected in numerous different story or setting forms.

 

[prosfilaes]

There are good lawyers who can get you off the hook with a "few words," and surgeons who can fix your heart with some basic material components and "a few gestures." Don't expect them to come cheap, though.

Ultimately, though, every mother wants their child to be lawyers and doctors, and there are in fact many doctors and lawyers in modern society. If what you need is someone argue a judge into dropping a speeding ticket, or to clean and sew up a nasty cut, it will run you a few hundred dollars, which isn't that big of a deal.

It strikes me as likely that every large village, along with its idiot, will have its genius, who upon reaching apprentice age will be dragged to the nearest wizard's tower, who will be begged to accept the youth as an apprentice. Will it cost the family? Yes, but a lot of people will sacrifice a lot to help their children, and this is a farmer's one chance to retire in the lap of luxury.

One roadblock might be for only people of some status to be apprentices. As a wizard, however, I might prefer an apprentice that doesn't balk at doing hard work, and whose family won't threaten me should he get eaten by a demon or burnt by a fireball backlash.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, look, I have never been talking about baseline D&D assumptions and how they affect everyones campaigns. I have never been saying that you can't have a setting full of continual light spells if you really want to. I have just been saying that if someone doesn't want those things in their setting, it is quite easy to have it be the case.

For the most part, I reject the idea that the D&D ruleset represents any kind of laws of physics or strict implied setting.

This I have a bit of a problem with.

How can you reject the idea that the D&D ruleset represents an implied setting? Every ruleset of D&D, from Basic/Expert, through to 4e has a very strongly implied setting. The cosmology and all of its consequences, gods, and, yes, how magic works. While they don't get down to the bare details of how magic works, that's true, they do tell you pretty specifically what happens when you do X.

Again, if you want to reject that and talk about your specific campaign setting, fine. That's cool. I believe it was in this thread that Marcq talked about ejecting the cosmology from his setting and changing a number of other details. That's fine.

But, we're not talking about your or my or Marcq's campaign. We're talking about the world that's described in the D&D books. Once we start rejecting pieces of the rules that don't fit our particularly views, we're into homebrew territory. Very cool homebrew territory, but, still homebrew nonetheless.

Can you interpret the rules and make changes so that you get a static world where none of the elements in the game have any setting implications? Sure. Of course you can. But, doing so requires some pretty serious rewriting of the game. It makes it very difficult to have any conversation without setting a baseline for comparison.

 

[SKyOdin]

This I have a bit of a problem with.

How can you reject the idea that the D&D ruleset represents an implied setting? Every ruleset of D&D, from Basic/Expert, through to 4e has a very strongly implied setting. The cosmology and all of its consequences, gods, and, yes, how magic works. While they don't get down to the bare details of how magic works, that's true, they do tell you pretty specifically what happens when you do X.

Again, if you want to reject that and talk about your specific campaign setting, fine. That's cool. I believe it was in this thread that Marcq talked about ejecting the cosmology from his setting and changing a number of other details. That's fine.

But, we're not talking about your or my or Marcq's campaign. We're talking about the world that's described in the D&D books. Once we start rejecting pieces of the rules that don't fit our particularly views, we're into homebrew territory. Very cool homebrew territory, but, still homebrew nonetheless.

Can you interpret the rules and make changes so that you get a static world where none of the elements in the game have any setting implications? Sure. Of course you can. But, doing so requires some pretty serious rewriting of the game. It makes it very difficult to have any conversation without setting a baseline for comparison.

First off, there is no singular D&D setting. Whenever someone creates a setting or campaign for D&D, they interpret the basic rules and ideas of D&D in different ways. Look at Eberron, Forgotten Realms, and Dark Sun for example: all three of those official settings take the same basic rules and draw out very different setting paradigms. And nothing I have suggested is beyond the same bounds of interpretation that those settings use. I haven't suggested anything involving changing actual rules, only the setting interpretations of those rules.

Second off, D&D doesn't tell you anything about how magic works. Let me ask this, what does a wizard do when he casts fireball? The 3E rules tell us that the wizard says something, does something with his hands, and then does something with bat guano. The 4E rules tell us absolutely nothing about what the wizard does when he casts fireball. There is no explanation whatsoever of where the fire comes from in either rule set. That isn't even an attempt at an explanation, let alone an actual system. Does the wizard invoke a pact with fire spirits, draw out the ideal form of fire from an alternate dimension, call upon a miracle from his guardian angel, or draw out the power from a local ley-line of energy? D&D makes no attempt to give an explanation for arcane magic on even that fundamental level. So there is no implied understanding of how magic works in D&D; it is just a blank slate for DMs to fill in as they wish.

Likewise, the only setting material given in core D&D rules deals with cosmology, lists of gods, and so on. However, those things are explicitly designed to be replaced and modified at will. I don't consider changing the list of gods or what the planes are to be house rules, since those things aren't rules in the first place.

Also, I don't think that just because a monster or race is included in a book means that that creature exists in a setting. It is also safe to assume that creatures are governed and affected by considerations that are not directly addressed or explicitly stated by the game rules. Otherwise, creatures wouldn't need to eat and couldn't procreate. In my opinion, saying that dragons exist in a setting and saying that dragons never existed in a setting are equally valid options.

Let me summarize my argument. I think that it is possible to prevent a magic-industrial revolution in a D&D setting without changing a single word of rules text. It can be done simply by being selective about what is included in the setting and adding some rather logical qualifiers to magic that don't affect the in-game use of magic. Likewise, it is possible to have a world dominated by advanced, commonly used magic by adjusting those non-rule factors in a slightly different way.

EDIT: I suppose I should say that there is an implied setting of sorts in D&D. However, my point is that it is a very vague, ill-defined thing. People tend to overstate how real the implied setting is. There are many things that don't work with D&D, but far, far more things that do. Honestly, I think many people's ideas of what "generic D&D" means are colored by their own preferences and experiences. However, those preferences are not an inherent part of the ruleset.

 

[Hussar]

I haven't suggested anything involving changing actual rules, only the setting interpretations of those rules.

Actually, yes you have. You've changed the rules for Permanent duration, to less than forever.

AFAIC, how doesn't matter. How does a wizard make a fireball? Who cares? All I need to know is that when caster does X, Y happens. Every time. The exact way in which that works? Totally not important. Anything which changes Y is moving beyond the rules.

Can you make a static setting where none of the rules have any implications? Sure. I just personally find it very unbelievable and think it's about as consistent as jello.

Then again, I tend not to worry about it too much when I'm actually playing.

 

[SKyOdin]

Actually, yes you have. You've changed the rules for Permanent duration, to less than forever.

AFAIC, how doesn't matter. How does a wizard make a fireball? Who cares? All I need to know is that when caster does X, Y happens. Every time. The exact way in which that works? Totally not important. Anything which changes Y is moving beyond the rules.

Except that I didn't change the Y of the continual flame spell. If X is the player choice to utilize an in-game effect, then Y is the in-game effect determined by the rules. If a player casts continual flame under my interpretation, then it will not run out on them within the context of the game or the campaign. What I changed was the less well-defined factor of how rule effects work when utilized by NPCs in a historical sense.

To draw a comparison, let's look at how non-magical physics are emulated by D&D. For the most part, the game doesn't spell out anything specific about how the laws of physics work in a D&D rules. It just generally presumes a general similarity with real-world physics. The D&D rules don't even attempt to accurately model real world physics (this can be seen in the oddities of falling damage, which only roughly approximate the effects of gravity). Furthermore, the D&D rules are not in any way dependent on a setting that follows real world physics. The D&D rules work just as well in a flat world held up by a turtle where objects fall based on the ordering of elements Aristotle proposed. Either trying to emulate real world physics or trying to emulate a completely fantastic world work equally well under the same rules.

To make another comparison, what happens when a PC imbibes a lot of alcohol? There are no rules for drunkenness in most versions of D&D. However, it would be unbelievable for most DMs and players if there was no consequence for being drunk, whether is represented by rules for not. So players are certainly comfortable with the application of non-rules logic into the game world.

As such, there is no direct correlation between game rules and the details of setting logic.

Can you make a static setting where none of the rules have any implications? Sure. I just personally find it very unbelievable and think it's about as consistent as jello.

Then again, I tend not to worry about it too much when I'm actually playing.

Since when was I arguing for a "static setting". I haven't even been advocating any specific setting! All I have been saying is that D&D settings are highly malleable based on what assumptions a DM puts into them. For example, most of the arguments around whether or not mages would be commonplace are completely dependent on questions of class/level demographics. Those demographics are purely based on DM whim, rather than rules. A world where half the population are level 10 or higher is just as legitimate under the rules as a world where no-one except the PCs is above level 1. As such, the DM can adjust the class/level demographics to suit the needs and tone of the setting.

What bugs me is that when I said that it was possible to have a setting where there was no industrial revolution or magical revolution, a few people including you started telling me that such a setting either shouldn't exist or just dismissed it as "house-ruled" (i.e. not real D&D). Shouldn't DMs be free to create the settings they like as long they do so intentionally and with internal logic?