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

[Raven Crowking]

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]

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]

Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, XP! XP! Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, Munckin, XP! XP!

Sorry I'm having too much fun.

 

[rounser]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."