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

[Numion]

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).

Well, people can't choose to be sorcerers because it requires innate talent. A player can make that decision. A PC or an NPC cant.

I'll backtrack a little (like I already did) and say that what class an NPC becomes is not because the lack of his free will, but the situations and restrictions of his life in the fantasy / lala land.

Some indeed become sorcerers. But most can't or won't.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, people can't choose to be sorcerers because it requires innate talent. A player can make that decision. A PC or an NPC cant.

I'll backtrack a little (like I already did) and say that what class an NPC becomes is not because the lack of his free will, but the situations and restrictions of his life in the fantasy / lala land.

Some indeed become sorcerers. But most can't or won't.

Fair enough....but then the same can be applied to spell selection. And, again, you can create that low fantasy world just as logically as the magitech one.

However, I think that the original argument required that the world be designed based upon the logic of the rules, as though the rules were more than an emulation of genre. What you are basically saying (I think) is that the rules emulate genre, and I agree with you there 100%. I said the same earlier.



RC

 

[gizmo33]

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.

I myself would be reluctant to go very far with this contemplation without first "completing" the ruleset of DnD to allow for the additional spells, feats, and skills that would exist in a "simulationist" fantasy world. For example - the "Detect Sorcerer" spell. IMO the DnD rules are incomplete when it comes to painting a picture of what a complete fantasy world would be like. The rules are focused towards dungeon crawls.

Besides, control would be notoriously difficult since sorcerers are just born, and don't require formal training.

As I alluded to above, though, a fantasy world which has a species of dog that can "smell" arcane spell casters, as well as a Detect Sorcerer spell, etc. paints a completely different picture. I don't know what you mean by "notoriously difficult" - probably just that the powers listed in the Core Rules make this a difficult task.

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.

A high level group of heroes is more unrealistic than you would gather by contemplating a PC group. PC adventuring groups IMO have a great amount of metagaming that goes on to justify their existence.

However, the natural place to look for a "state-sanctioned" adventuring party would be a class of NPC nobles chosen for the task. Part of a vassals military obligation to his lord could be the furnishing of a arcane spell-caster (or other "adventurer" type) who maintains membership in an "adventuring party"-type strike force. These "adventurers" would all be land-owners (as required) with family connections that helps ensure their loyalty to the state.

IMO, the "threat" that an adventuring party poses to the state is no different than any other "private army" within the state. Such private armies do exist under the right conditions - and so would adventuring parties. There are plenty of historical guides - mercenary companies, orders of knighthood, privateers, etc.

 

[Storm Raven]

We could feed everyone on earth. We could house everyone. We could control our population and save our environment.

Please explain the difference.

Virtually none of those things would be of benefit to those in positions of power.

Conversely, many of the practical applications of magic would be enormously valuable to those in power. As just a basic example - an army marches on its stomach. Increasing the crop yields of your land through the judicious application of magical effects increases the size of the army you can afford to keep in the field, giving you an advantage over your neighbors. A ruler who didn't exploit magic in a world in which magic is real would not be a ruler of anything other than a mud pond for very long.

 

[Numion]

As I alluded to above, though, a fantasy world which has a species of dog that can "smell" arcane spell casters, as well as a Detect Sorcerer spell, etc. paints a completely different picture. I don't know what you mean by "notoriously difficult" - probably just that the powers listed in the Core Rules make this a difficult task.

That's all I have to go by. A nation where magic is restricted by the government is one possibility, yes, but other possibilities exist. A state that is run by powerful magicians, for example. Maybe it was an opressive state at some point, but some order of mages took over by high-level magic.

Even with spells, control would be difficult on a global scale. There would always be some part of the planet where magicians might thrive. Not beholden to distance, they could easily stage coups across the planet.

A high level group of heroes is more unrealistic than you would gather by contemplating a PC group. PC adventuring groups IMO have a great amount of metagaming that goes on to justify their existence.

However, the natural place to look for a "state-sanctioned" adventuring party would be a class of NPC nobles chosen for the task. Part of a vassals military obligation to his lord could be the furnishing of a arcane spell-caster (or other "adventurer" type) who maintains membership in an "adventuring party"-type strike force. These "adventurers" would all be land-owners (as required) with family connections that helps ensure their loyalty to the state.

For a diplomatic mission, nobles, yes. If something needs to get done, a normal adventuring party might be more effective. Like assassination, acquisition of some key piece of the enemys magical power (I wage that a Mirror of Prowess might be one such thing), etc..

IMO, the "threat" that an adventuring party poses to the state is no different than any other "private army" within the state. Such private armies do exist under the right conditions - and so would adventuring parties. There are plenty of historical guides - mercenary companies, orders of knighthood, privateers, etc.

IMO it's quite different. Unable to terrorize civilians on a grand scale like an army, an adventuring group would be a threat mostly to key members of any ruling elite. Against a conventional army the elite is mostly safe until their military might is crushed (or until their own army turns on them). So I'd say the threat is decisively different than what a mercenary company would pose.

An order of knights can't scry the Kings location, teleport nearby and disintegrate him. Now, in a world where some people can do that, the King would have protections against that. But he would be severely hindered by those protections. Most of the anti-teleport spells I've seen are tied to a location, for example.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Virtually none of those things would be of benefit to those in positions of power.

Conversely, many of the practical applications of magic would be enormously valuable to those in power. As just a basic example - an army marches on its stomach. Increasing the crop yields of your land through the judicious application of magical effects increases the size of the army you can afford to keep in the field, giving you an advantage over your neighbors. A ruler who didn't exploit magic in a world in which magic is real would not be a ruler of anything other than a mud pond for very long.

The value of providing a service does not change because you have magic available to you. All that changes, as was pointed out earlier, is the ease by which such services can be made available. Increasing the crop yields of your land isn't necessary if you control casters who can make food for your armies, which is both simpler and better (as it helps to prevent potential revolters from having the same advantages).

It may be true that a ruler who didn't exploit magic in a D&D world would not be a ruler for long (although, strictly speaking, Hussar's and Numion's arguments about the demographics of D&D worlds being essentially hardwired might make even that conclusion doubtful), but it is far more true that a ruler who didn't control how magic was used in his domain -- and, to the extent of his power, in all domains he could -- would rule a smaller mud pond a lot sooner.

Obviously, you can create a reasonably logical account of a world with magitech. You can make an equally reasonabaly logical account of a world without. Which is the point -- neither is a more logical extrapolation of the D&D rules than the other. They only vary in what they handwave, and what they ignore.

In a real D&D magitech world, IMHO, all of the rulers would be immortal liches or quasi-divine beings that ruthlessly squashed lesser spellcasters when they reached a certain level. And, quite likely, on some level, there would be a secret cartel that met to determine the fate of the world, and who fought meaningless wars with their pawns just for entertainment value.

In your more peaceful and good-natured magitech worlds, at the very least, most of the monstrous races would have gone the way of the lion in Europe or the smilodon. Have you ever read Hong's account of the average D&D commoner? Coordinated spellcasters would work harder to eliminate ankhegs once and for all than to build houses, IMHO.

RC

 

[gizmo33]

Even with spells, control would be difficult on a global scale. There would always be some part of the planet where magicians might thrive. Not beholden to distance, they could easily stage coups across the planet.

I thought there were distance limits to teleport? In any case, I would (and do) impose distance limits on teleport and scrying. As I said before, I really think the simulationist approach runs into problems almost immediately, and the question for me becomes: "what should the house rules be in order to convincingly produce my current fantasy world".

For a diplomatic mission, nobles, yes. If something needs to get done, a normal adventuring party might be more effective.

If each of the nobles has levels in an adventuring character class, then there's no difference between them and an adventuring party except that the trust factor for the state is much higher. In my campaign, not all nobles (by far) are of the Aristocrat character class. Historically, persons referred to as "adventurers" (explorers, etc.) were almost always of the noble class.

Like assassination, acquisition of some key piece of the enemys magical power (I wage that a Mirror of Prowess might be one such thing), etc..

Their success would rely on their ability to escape detection though. Given the right spells and mundane techniques for detecting invisible, for example, an "assassination" mission would be as risky as in real life, and would thus be subject to the same considerations.

So I'd say the threat is decisively different than what a mercenary company would pose.

Yes, but that's not quite what I was saying the similarity was. A mercenary company is a threat to the elite because they can kick down some nobleman's front door, storm in and kill him. What's preventing that? Some answers (among other things) are guards, steel doors, etc.

So it's essentially the same thing as the mercenary company in that the nobleman has to protect himself from magical dangers as well as mundane dangers. Mercenary companies existed in the real world and were a threat to nobles - same as magic-weilding adventurers. The only difference is the nature of the threat, and thus that the nature of the protections needed. But I think the conditions under which mercenary companies and magic-using adventurers would be allowed to operate in any particular realm would be similar.

Most of the anti-teleport spells I've seen are tied to a location, for example.

But that's where I would say that the DnD game is not a simulation. DnD is geared (in a metagamey way) towards providing a challenge to players in a "dungeon-like" environment. A simlulationist version of DnD would very well include an anti-teleport spell whose target is an object or person. Plus a whole bunch of anti-teleport spells, not just "you fail" type protections, but ones that allow the teportee to be rerouted to a dungeon, or return a doppelganger to their starting location etc. The possibilities are nearly limitless, and once wizards were aware of the possiblities, the mere chance of death would be enough to make the "scry-teleport-disintegrate" option much less attractive.

As I've said though - you can't get there IMO with the Core Rules.

 

[Storm Raven]

The value of providing a service does not change because you have magic available to you.

The ability to provide such a service at all is a big deal though. Many services can be provided by magic that would otherwise be virtually impossible for a middle-ages tech world to produce, and at a fairly reasonable price for most of them.

All that changes, as was pointed out earlier, is the ease by which such services can be made available. Increasing the crop yields of your land isn't necessary if you control casters who can make food for your armies, which is both simpler and better (as it helps to prevent potential revolters from having the same advantages).

Actually, it isn't simpler, because it is far less effective. A single spellcaster can increase your crop yields by a tremendous amount, whereas he cannot, on his own, produce enough food to make a difference. The combination of magic and labor is more powerful than magic alone.

It may be true that a ruler who didn't exploit magic in a D&D world would not be a ruler for long (although, strictly speaking, Hussar's and Numion's arguments about the demographics of D&D worlds being essentially hardwired might make even that conclusion doubtful), but it is far more true that a ruler who didn't control how magic was used in his domain -- and, to the extent of his power, in all domains he could -- would rule a smaller mud pond a lot sooner.

I would postulate that in any world in which magic was real, those who can use this power would end up in positions of authority in short order. In the real world, those who could use military force - usually meaning the ability to afford lots of armor, weapons, and horses, as well as the leisure time to train at arms - ended up ruling most of the world in the pre-gunpowder era. Conversely, in a magical world, where power is held by those who are good at casting spells, they would likely dominate the political landscape.

At the very least, those in power would be able to command the loyalty of those who wield such power - I suspect, for example, that nationalism would probably be a bigger deal than is was in our own middle-ages, specifically to appeal to the patriotic spirit of the spellcasters (and higher level members of other classes) in the various realms.

Obviously, you can create a reasonably logical account of a world with magitech. You can make an equally reasonabaly logical account of a world without. Which is the point -- neither is a more logical extrapolation of the D&D rules than the other. They only vary in what they handwave, and what they ignore.

You can only posit a world in which magic isn't exploited if you ignore human nature, history, and politics in favor of very dubious assumptions.

In a real D&D magitech world, IMHO, all of the rulers would be immortal liches or quasi-divine beings that ruthlessly squashed lesser spellcasters when they reached a certain level. And, quite likely, on some level, there would be a secret cartel that met to determine the fate of the world, and who fought meaningless wars with their pawns just for entertainment value.

Unlikely, because it would only require a single defector to render such a system void. Such a shaky political structure might arise, but it would likely collapse before any appreciable length of time elapsed.

In your more peaceful and good-natured magitech worlds, at the very least, most of the monstrous races would have gone the way of the lion in Europe or the smilodon. Have you ever read Hong's account of the average D&D commoner? Coordinated spellcasters would work harder to eliminate ankhegs once and for all than to build houses, IMHO.

Possibly. But then again, not everyone with the skills to be a big game hunter becomes one. Many people would rather live their lives in relative safety, making labor saving devices as opposed to hunting down things that have a very real chance of killing them.

 

[JohnSnow]

What's going on here is people raised in the 20th century looking at a D&D world and thinking "well, obviously, everyone growing up in this world would think BLANK."

The problem is that we, not having grown up in such a fantasy world, have no idea what BLANK is. We can extrapolate. There appears to be two general approaches: let's call them Assumption A and Assumption B.

Assumption A: Magic is basically regarded by the people in the world in the same way that most of us, raised in the 20th century as we were, regard technology. In other words: it's safe, reliable, and anyone can use it; it makes people's lives better, and so forth.

Under this assumption, magic is (logically) treated and used as technology. Maybe if it's abused, society would punish those who abuse it, but we, as products of a society where technology is widely used (and non-sentient - more on that below) blame the abuser in those cases, and not the technology itself. This group assumes that this attitude would dominate a world infused with magic in the same way.

Assumption B: Magic, for one reason or another, is not regarded in the same way that we, raised in the 20th century as we were, regard technology. This is usually because of a shift in one of the assumptions about the similarity between technology & magic. In other words, perhaps it's not safe, or not reliable, or not universally usable. Nobody denies it can make people's lives better, but it also clearly has the ability to make them worse.

Under Assumption B, magic is treated as we, as humans raised in the 20th century, might treat any "dangerous" technology. Nuclear weapons, biotechnology, self-aware robots, and any other sci-fi nightmare you can come up with fall into this category. I made a point earlier about the X-Men theory, which, concepts of alienation aside, could easily emulate the attitude that might prevail about magic and those who could use it.

The point is that neither of these assumptions is set in stone or more "correct" than the other. It seems to me that the more recent editions of D&D have emphasized assumption A to the exclusion of assumption B. And (and here's my original point) that the defaults of assumption A have been written into the rules.

For the record, I appreciate Eberron (and Ptolus) for their attempts to render logical conclusions to fantasy worlds. I'm not sure I can long enjoy a game in those settings, but that's me. Also, I'll confess that I've never been fond of D&D's divine/arcane magic dichotomy. Of all the things in the game, it's the one I find to be the most "D&Dish" of all. Thanks to the d20/OGL thing, I no longer have to be content with that dichotomy (which I freely admit is not something that's "new" to D&D).

The "Christmas Tree PC" thing is just something I wish was less "written in" to the Core Rules. Again, not something I can't change, I just wish it weren't so much a part of the game. And when I say "part of the game," here's what I mean. If you take away the character's juggling of their magical toys, the players have less "fun stuff" to do. Now, a game like Iron Heroes fixes that by giving the PCs more toys to have fun with, but those are ADDITIONS to the game.

Basically, I'm asking why has so much of the game's "fun factor" been built around "magic management?" Is that what people want?

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, your assumption is that such items must be sold in a shop. Why? Why would a leader of a city be forced to go to a magic shop to buy continual light stones? Why couldn't he simply deed some juicy land to a sympathetic church and reap the benefits? I brought this up earlier and it got lost in the wash I think.

One of the problems here is the assumption of power. Feudal states were rarely so concentrated. Sure there were kings and emperors, but, it was the guys a long way down the food chain that held the bulk of the power. What Lord Bob does in his land was pretty much none of the business of the king so long as he paid his tithe.

Sure, the king could likely squash any individual lord, but, collectively? Not a chance.

The idea of such a centrally controlled state would REQUIRE magitech for communications purposes if nothing else. When it takes days to travel 100 miles, the power of the king ends pretty quickly. Simple geography defeats a monolithic government. Even Rome, an extremely powerful state, had very little say in the day to day existence of any of the provinces. China was more a series of independent states that paid lip service to an empire than anything resembling a modern nation state.

Without the means of communication and travel, you can't have a nation state. The idea is really more anachronistic than magitech.

The "Christmas Tree PC" thing is just something I wish was less "written in" to the Core Rules. Again, not something I can't change, I just wish it weren't so much a part of the game. And when I say "part of the game," here's what I mean. If you take away the character's juggling of their magical toys, the players have less "fun stuff" to do. Now, a game like Iron Heroes fixes that by giving the PCs more toys to have fun with, but those are ADDITIONS to the game.

Basically, I'm asking why has so much of the game's "fun factor" been built around "magic management?" Is that what people want?

I highly disagree with the assumptions here. The idea that 3e characters are walking Christmas trees and that this is something new is very removed from my experience.

Let's take a 7th level character. This is admitted by many to be the middle of the sweet spot for gaming. A 7th level character by RAW is toting around 19k gp in equipment. So, let's give him the following:

• +1 armor 1000 gp
• +1 shield 1000 gp
• +1 sword 2000 gp
• +1 bow 2000 gp
• Gauntlets of ogre power 4000 gp
• 4 potions of whatever 1000 gp
• Ring of Swimming 2500 gp
• Amulet of Health +2 4000 gp
• 1500 gp in sundry non-magical items - horse, armor etc.

Now, I'm probably a tad on the high side for this guy. But, whatever. Now, how much different is he from a fighter with no magic items? He has 7 more hit points, +2 to hit, +2 to damage and +2 AC and a bonus to swim.

Big deal. This simply isn't a big enough issue to worry about. Actually, he doesn't have +2 to hit since the non magic fighter might have MW weapons.

Really, who cares? You could take away some or all of those items and it wouldn't make the slightest difference. (Unless you start tossing in all DR/Magic bad guys ). It's just not that large of a difference.

At very high levels, 14 or 15 plus, then you see Christmas trees. But, come on, these are the wahoo levels anyway.