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

[Raven Crowking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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