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

[rounser]

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.

Interestingly, this is the policy of both the githyanki Lich-Queen and Lolth, and pretty much describes them to a tee.

 

[Hussar]

I noticed that one too. Seems like we're not covering too much new ground here.

Then again, the idea of immortal/deific rulers isn't exactly a new one either.

I know there's a thread floating around here about politics in DnD which posits something very close to this as well.

 

[rounser]

Seems like we're not covering too much new ground here.

That's debatable. I interpreted their policies as a way of stressing their tyranny and paranoia, and maybe the instability of their position, because in the larger D&D multiverse most of their ilk don't seem to need to implement such measures to stay in power. It's curious that designers chose two female power figures for this too, unless the lich-queen was modelled after Lolth.

 

[boredgremlin]

You're avoiding a central issue here. In 1e and 2e, many of these creatures could not be physcially harmed without magic. In 3.x, if you hit them hard enough, you can hurt them, making magic weapons nice, but not totally necessary.

half the creatures you listed could be hit with silver or iron, or blessed weapons. You rendered our own argument facetious.

 

[woodelf]

Leveling characters in world with lots of magic and monsters has been D&D since the beginning.

I'd disagree with that--the 'lots of magic' part wasn't inherent until D&D3E. As evidenced by the fact that every game i actually played in during the 80s and 90s, as well as every one i had 2nd-hand knowledge of (i.e., knew the participants personally) had *way* less magic than D&D3e characters. As in, 7th-level characters with a +3 sword, a couple potions or scrolls, and one other minor item--and that was it. One 8th-level character's only magic items were a wand of wonder and a +2 dagger, and that wasn't atypical. I'm sure there were games with more magic items, but the rules didn't assume that, like they do now. And, whether because the rules were loose enough that it didn't matter, or assumed lower magic item levels, we never had any balance problems in such games--while using monsters that were at the appropriate level for the characters.

 

[Hussar]

That's debatable. I interpreted their policies as a way of stressing their tyranny and paranoia, and maybe the instability of their position, because in the larger D&D multiverse most of their ilk don't seem to need to implement such measures to stay in power. It's curious that designers chose two female power figures for this too, unless the lich-queen was modelled after Lolth.

I don't know. Both Lolth and the Lich Queen make their first appearance in the same source, the original Fiend Folio, so I have no idea how much one influenced the other. My gut would say not much, but, that's entirely a guess.

A lot of this is going to change drastically from setting to setting as well. I was just reading the opening chapters of the Scarred Lands setting and they have a different take on it as well. The sorcerers came first, then the wizards. The wizards then take over much of Scarn, but get smacked down by the Titans. However, before that happens, its the wizards and their research which bring the Gods to Scarn. Wizards are seen as part of the Gods and sorcs as Titanspawn. That's a simplified version, but, not terribly inaccurate.

As the Titanswar ends, there is so much devastation that there just hasn't been time to rebuild the magical infrastructure. But, the history of SL is replete with very high magic civilizations. Essentially, it was mostly due to the existence of the Titans that no single empire lasted too long. Every time they built up, one or another Titan would squash it. But, since the spell casters kept so many alive during the very tough times, spell casters were never seen as the enemy.

SL takes a rather Steven Erikson approach to organized wizardry. Most are co-opted by the local regimes. Interestingly enough, in that series, the job of war wizards isn't to kill the enemy, but rather to protect their troops from the enemy wizards. If the enemy has no wizards, the fight is over when the cadre mages obliterate the enemy.

 

[Numion]

I'd disagree with that--the 'lots of magic' part wasn't inherent until D&D3E. As evidenced by the fact that every game i actually played in during the 80s and 90s, as well as every one i had 2nd-hand knowledge of (i.e., knew the participants personally) had *way* less magic than D&D3e characters. As in, 7th-level characters with a +3 sword, a couple potions or scrolls, and one other minor item--and that was it. One 8th-level character's only magic items were a wand of wonder and a +2 dagger, and that wasn't atypical. I'm sure there were games with more magic items, but the rules didn't assume that, like they do now.

Why were the TSR modules then loaded with magic items to a far greater tune than 3E ones? I'm sure there were groups with lower level of magic items, but at least my highest level AD&D character run out of space on the character sheet, yes, because of magic items.

In my 3E games there are less items because players like to trade and sell most of the stuff to upgrade their main guns or protective items. (That is annoying in itself, because I as a DM would like them to keep all the kewl trinkets I have in my great wisdom placed in the adventure.)

And, whether because the rules were loose enough that it didn't matter, or assumed lower magic item levels, we never had any balance problems in such games--while using monsters that were at the appropriate level for the characters.

By definition monsters of appropriate level are .. well, appropriate and balanced against the group.

 

[Hussar]

I'd disagree with that--the 'lots of magic' part wasn't inherent until D&D3E. As evidenced by the fact that every game i actually played in during the 80s and 90s, as well as every one i had 2nd-hand knowledge of (i.e., knew the participants personally) had *way* less magic than D&D3e characters. As in, 7th-level characters with a +3 sword, a couple potions or scrolls, and one other minor item--and that was it. One 8th-level character's only magic items were a wand of wonder and a +2 dagger, and that wasn't atypical. I'm sure there were games with more magic items, but the rules didn't assume that, like they do now. And, whether because the rules were loose enough that it didn't matter, or assumed lower magic item levels, we never had any balance problems in such games--while using monsters that were at the appropriate level for the characters.

Ignoring for a second the published modules, the reason such campaigns worked is twofold. First off, the campaigns ended around 9th level, before the wizards really hit their stride. Secondly, it worked because the DM selected monsters that would work and ignored ones that wouldn't. Same as can be done in 3e.

Although, I would point out that a 7th level character in 3e could ONLY own a +3 sword. No horse, no armor. Just a sword. He's only good for 19 000 gp and a +3 sword is 18 000. Kinda blows your arguement out of the water there.

8th level character 27000 gp. +2 dagger 4000 gp, Rod of Wonder 12000 gp. So, yup, that one is at half wealth.

I guess one is and one isn't.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Let us not forget that, strictly going by RAW, each 1st level spell costs 100 gp. Even though the spell itself may not be that difficult, you are paying for the specialist (not unlike an auto mechanic).

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.

True. But that combination isn't simpler because it requires you to exert a much greater control over both your spellcasters and your population. You can't simply keep food producers in the barracks if they have to be out among the crops. Then you have to consider why they don't simply desert and become adventurers, in a D&D world anyway. There have to be some pretty heavy incentives. Then you have to consider how to prevent them taking over the farmlands. Somebody once said that "in a magical world, where power is held by those who are good at casting spells, they would likely dominate the political landscape." I extraoplate from that that "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" will therefore have to take steps to prevent the spellcasters from "ruling most of the world".

Also, what is easier: The spellcaster making food for himself only, or the spellcaster helping everyone else out? History teaches that people tend to do the easiest thing unless they can see a clear-cut advantage for doing otherwise. Very few people make true "labor saving devices" (this is certainly not the efficient future that 50's SF promised us!) but many people want to exploit the labor of others.

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.

In the real world, nationalism is a big deal because individuals cannot protect themselves against a hostile world. By banding together into communities, people are able to protect themselves from other individuals and, to a lesser extent, from other communities. But power in a D&D world going strictly by the RAW is not at all like power in the real world.

In a D&D world, power rests with individuals in a way it never has in the real world. A spellcaster isn't the equivilent of a man with a gun. A spellcaster isn't the equivilent of a nuclear arsenal. A spellcaster that can cast beneficial spells has the potential to learn any spell on his list, and there is no way to control what spells she learns. Moreover, as she gains levels, she is only going to become more powerful and harder to control. She will learn to cast spells without speech, or movement, or materials. You won't know what she's casting, or when. You might feel warmly toward her, and you won't know whether that's because she's helped you so many times or because you're under her influence. She says she can only cast low-level spells (and thus can't do what you fear), but you have no way to know if she's telling the truth. Her other friend, the other spellcaster, says he detects no lies, but you know that those spells can be countered.....And what if they are in it together? Just how many ranks of Spellcraft and Knowledge [Arcana] does the average village headmaster have, anyway?

Jump a step up in government, and the same problems occur, just on a greater scale. Now you know (or think you know) that your friend the spellcaster can cast the spells you fear most. Those magical bracers that he claims protect you....do they also charm you to his will? Are you sure? That new ring you got for your birthday....doesn't detect as magic, but that could be a spell effect, too.

Etc., etc., etc.

If it is true that the mindset of a 12th level NPC spellcaster won't be that different from the mindset of a 12th level PC spellcaster, most worlds will not have strong nationalism. They will have rampant individualism, disregard for authority, disregard for social consequence, disregard for taxes, and, eventually, a coup of local government.

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.

I find that a very dubious statement.

Magic in the D&D RAW is unlike anything found in nature, and unlike anything real world history and politics have had to deal with. The only example worlds we can describe are fictional, and 3e D&D worlds are more like superhero comics than most fantasy novels. In fact, they employ the same conceit: the villians do not take over the world because the heroes always arise to stop them; the heroes don't change the world significantly with their vast powers because they are always too busy with the villians.

Of course, then you can examine D&D worlds, and the games that occur within them. Are the PCs very nationalistic? Unless artificially constrained by the DM, do they use their powers only for good? Do they kill people and rob them of their stuff? You can only posit a world in which magic is exploited by the masses if you ignore PC behavior in favor of very dubious assumptions.

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.

Oddly enough, you are forgetting the availability of magic. Any defector could be detected before the defection occurred. Of course, your opponent would attempt to counter the detection. But you could counter that.

The system would not be stable so far as its effects on the world were concerned but it could do very nicely for those ultra-powerful beings.

RC

 

[boredgremlin]

Why were the TSR modules then loaded with magic items to a far greater tune than 3E ones? I'm sure there were groups with lower level of magic items, but at least my highest level AD&D character run out of space on the character sheet, yes, because of magic items.

In my 3E games there are less items because players like to trade and sell most of the stuff to upgrade their main guns or protective items. (That is annoying in itself, because I as a DM would like them to keep all the kewl trinkets I have in my great wisdom placed in the adventure.)



By definition monsters of appropriate level are .. well, appropriate and balanced against the group.

Modules??? I played AD&D for 5 years and never touched a single module. They are just lazy DMing. The rules in 2e worked fine with lower magic, if adventure writers messed with that for your games then your blame lies with the individual writers and not with the system.